Is Speed a Desirable Difficulty for Learning Procedures? An Initial Exploration of the Effects of Chronometric Pressure

External Versus Internal Focus of Attention in Procedural Skills Learning: A Randomized Study

PURPOSE

The Optimizing Performance Through Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for Learning (OPTIMAL) theory postulates that directing attention to the intended movement effect or outcome (external focus) is more effective than directing attention to the internal body motion or body part (internal focus). This study compared external versus internal focus of attention as novice students learned ultrasound-guided peripheral cannulation. The authors hypothesized that conditions promoting an external (vs internal) focus of attention would result in better performance on immediate and delayed (retention) testing.

METHOD

The authors conducted a randomized, experimental study from October 2022 to February 2023 comparing external and internal focus using ultrasound-guided peripheral venous cannulation followed by practice using an ultrasound training block. Undergraduate health science students performed 4 practice trials with instructions to focus on the needle tip (external focus) or their hands (internal focus), followed by immediate and delayed (retention) assessment 2 weeks later. The primary outcome was time to successful cannulation. Results were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and parametric survival analysis regression (accelerated failure time) models.

RESULTS

Seventy participants completed the immediate assessment. The external focus group completed successful cannulation a mean of 2.33 times faster (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.47-3.67; P < .001) than those in the internal focus group (median time, 12.0 vs 29.5 seconds). Results also favored the external focus group during practice, with the external focus group successfully completing the task a mean of 1.83 times faster (95% CI, 1.04-3.21; P = .04) than the internal focus group. In the retention assessment, the external focus group successfully completed the task a mean of 2.37 times faster (95% CI, 1.19-4.74; P = .02) than the internal focus group.

CONCLUSIONS

External focus of attention compared with internal focus of attention improves medical motor skill learning in novice learners.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Romanian Postgraduate Periodontal Residency Teaching: Past Experience, Present Imperatives and Future Considerations in a Multicentric Evaluation

The aims of this study were to identify the challenges in periodontology postgraduate residency programs during the COVID-19 pandemic by identifying the modifications of educational instruments, to evaluate the impact of hybrid education on periodontology postgraduate programs in terms of resident-centred outcomes, and to evaluate the education efficiency of an innovative teaching approach. Resident doctors from three Romanian dental faculties were included in study groups based on the intensity of clinical training. A web-based questionnaire was used to collect information on residents’ perception about teaching activity. Important educational changes were identified. Moreover, residents learned a periodontal procedure through online training and then performed it on preclinical models three times. The working times were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed. Resident doctors were unsatisfied with clinical practice during the pandemic year, but they positively valued the development of online courses. Learning efficiency improved by repeating the same procedure on preclinical models, as proved by the significant decrease of the working times. E-learning was appreciated as an important component of the new hybrid teaching approach. Reorganization and further emphasis on both preclinical and medical practice, targeted to aid residents perform more accurate and efficient procedures, are recommended.

Simulation for Neonatal Endotracheal Intubation Training: How Different Is It From Clinical Practice?

INTRODUCTION

Neonatal endotracheal intubation is a critical skill that is difficult for learners to acquire even with simulation-based training (SBT). Trainees prefer clinical experiences over SBT. The objective of the study was to explore the differences between SBT and clinical practice in acquiring neonatal intubation skills to inform mannequin design and to improve fidelity.

METHODS

A basic qualitative study using semistructured interviews was conducted to determine the experience of newly competent trainees (second- and third-year neonatal-perinatal medicine fellows) and their instructors in developing intubation skills. Participants were asked to compare learning through SBT with clinical practice in terms of context, equipment, and environment. Their responses were analyzed using an inductive approach.

RESULTS

Thirty-two participants (20 fellows and 12 faculty) indicated that SBT does not equal the real experience. Specifically, the look, feel, and function of the simulators differ enough from the real patient and the clinical environmental that they do not elicit the desired learning responses. The clinical environment prompted heightened emotions and had a chaotic atmosphere that was not fully captured by SBT. Participants suggested that programs use SBT in the initial phases of training only to gain basic skills and they provided several solutions for mannequin and SBT session design.

CONCLUSIONS

Simulation-based training does not fully prepare neonatal-perinatal medicine fellows for neonatal intubation. Mannequins with unique active features, such as multiple airway configurations, slipperiness, secretions, and softer textures should be developed. Realistic environments that replicate the interprofessional nature and stressors of the clinical environment might better prepare learners for the complexity of clinical practice.

Speed and quality goals in procedural skills learning: A randomized experiment

Purpose: Compare time (speed) and product quality goals in a surgical procedural task.Methods: Secondary school students participating in a medical simulation-based training activity participated in a randomized experiment. Each participant completed eight repetitions of a blood vessel ligation. Once, between repetitions four and five, each participant received a randomly-assigned speed goal or quality goal. Outcomes included time and leak-free ligatures.Results: 80 students participated. The speed-goal group performed 18% faster on the final repetition than the quality-goal group, with adjusted fold change (FC) 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71, 0.94; p = 0.01). Conversely, the speed-goal group had fewer high-quality (leak-free) ligatures (odds ratio [OR] 0.36 [95% CI, 0.22, 0.58; p < 0.001]). For the quality-goal group, leaky ligatures took longer post-intervention than leak-free ligatures (FC 1.09 [95% CI, 1.02, 1.17; p = 0.01]), whereas average times for leaky and leak-free ligatures were similar for the speed-goal group (FC 0.97 [95% CI, 0.91, 1.04; p = 0.38]). For a given performance time, the speed-goal group had more leaks post-intervention than the quality-goal group (OR 3.35 [95% CI, 1.58, 7.10; p = 0.002]).Conclusions: Speed and quality goals promote different learning processes and outcomes among novices. Use of both speed and quality goals may facilitate more effective and efficient learning.

Supporting self-regulation in simulation-based education: a randomized experiment of practice schedules and goals

Self-regulated learning is optimized when instructional supports are provided. We evaluated three supports for self-regulated simulation-based training: practice schedules, normative comparisons, and learning goals. Participants practiced 5 endoscopy tasks on a physical simulator, then completed 4 repetitions on a virtual reality simulator. Study A compared two practice schedules: sequential (master each task in assigned order) versus unstructured (trainee-defined). Study B compared normative comparisons framed as success (10% of trainees were successful) versus failure (90% of trainees were unsuccessful). Study C compared a time-only goal (go 1 min faster) versus time + quality goal (go 1 min faster with better visualization and scope manipulation). Participants (18 surgery interns, 17 research fellows, 5 medical/college students) were randomly assigned to groups. In Study A, the sequential group had higher task completion (10/19 vs. 1/21; P < .001), longer persistence attempting an ultimately incomplete task (20.0 vs. 15.9 min; P = .03), and higher efficiency (43% vs. 27%; P = .02), but task time was similar between groups (20.0 vs. 22.6 min; P = .23). In Study B, the success orientation group had higher task completion (10/16 vs. 1/24; P < .001) and longer persistence (21.2 vs. 14.6 min; P = .001), but efficiency was similar (33% vs. 35%; P = .84). In Study C, the time-only group had greater efficiency than time + quality (56% vs. 41%; P = .03), but task time did not differ significantly (172 vs. 208 s; P = .07). In this complex motor task, a sequential (vs. unstructured) schedule, success (vs. failure) orientation, and time-only (vs. time + quality) goal improved some (but not all) performance outcomes.