E‐learning in advanced cardiac life support: Outcome and attitude among healthcare professionals

Abstract

Background: Advanced cardiac life support provides healthcare professionals with knowledge and skills needed in dealing with cardiac emergencies. By incorporating e-learning in advanced cardiac life support courses, it allows for easier accessibility of learning materials and a more personalized learning schedule at a lower overall cost. Objectives: This study aims to compare the outcome of e-learning advanced cardiac life support versus conventional advanced cardiac life support among healthcare professionals and determine their attitude on e-learning. Methods: A total of 96 candidates attending advanced cardiac life support courses in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia between January 2016 and May 2017 were included in the study. In total, 48 candidates were enrolled on each arm. Candidates in conventional advanced cardiac life support undertook a 2-day face-to-face course. Participants in e-learning advanced cardiac life support completed 6 h of online lecture videos prior to 1-day modified face-to-face course. All candidates were assessed by pre- and post-course multiple-choice questions and practical cardiac arrest simulation test. Only post-course and cardiac arrest simulation test marks contribute to the passing or failure of the candidates. Results: Candidates in e-learning advanced cardiac life support courses had higher mean scores on the pre-course multiple-choice questions (69.1, SD: 19.1) compared to those in conventional advanced cardiac life support courses (58.6, SD: 16.6, p < 0.001). The cardiac arrest simulation test pass rate on e-learning advanced cardiac life support was higher than conventional advanced cardiac life support courses although statistically not significant (95.8% vs 87.5%; p = 0.134). The overall pass rate was 93.8% for e-learning advanced cardiac life support versus 83.3% in conventional advanced cardiac life support (p = 0.099). A majority of the candidates had positive attitude towards e-learning. Conclusion: E-learning advanced cardiac life support courses demonstrated better results in terms of knowledge compared to conventional advanced cardiac life support, with equivalent skill scores. Shorter course duration, lesser cost and participants’ satisfaction were the added benefits. Further study can be done to explore the utilization of e-learning materials among healthcare professionals and its other advantages.

Education, Implementation, and Teams

“…For the important outcome of knowledge at course conclusion, we also found very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) reported by 1 RCT 254 and 2 non-RCTs. 255,256 The RCT, randomizing 3732 participants of ALS courses to either 6 to 8 hours of eLearning plus 1 day of face-to-face training or to a traditional 2-day ALS course, 254 reported no statistical difference for end-of-course MCQ test scores (I: 88.96% versus C: 89.54%; adjusted difference, 0.55%; CI, À1.11% to 0.02%; P = 0.054). The first non-RCT, with 96 ACLS course participants 255 comparing 6 hours of online lectures plus a 1-day face-to-face course with a traditional 2day face-to-face course, showed that MCQ pass rates at course conclusion did not differ statistically (C: 85.4% versus I: 95.8%; P = 0.08).…”

“…255,256 The RCT, randomizing 3732 participants of ALS courses to either 6 to 8 hours of eLearning plus 1 day of face-to-face training or to a traditional 2-day ALS course, 254 reported no statistical difference for end-of-course MCQ test scores (I: 88.96% versus C: 89.54%; adjusted difference, 0.55%; CI, À1.11% to 0.02%; P = 0.054). The first non-RCT, with 96 ACLS course participants 255 comparing 6 hours of online lectures plus a 1-day face-to-face course with a traditional 2day face-to-face course, showed that MCQ pass rates at course conclusion did not differ statistically (C: 85.4% versus I: 95.8%; P = 0.08). The second study, including 27170 participants of ALS courses, 256 compared 6 to 8 hours of eLearning plus 1 day of face-toface training with a traditional 2-day face-to-face ALS training.…”

“…254 This study was inconclusive in demonstrating noninferiority in the intervention group (C: 80.2% versus I: 74.5%; mean difference, -5.7%; 95% CI, -8.8% to -2.7%). The first non-RCT, with 96 ACLS course participants, 255 comparing 6 hours of online lectures plus a 1-day face-to-face training with a traditional 2-day face-to-face course, showed that cardiac arrest scenario test pass rates did not differ statistically (C: 87.5% versus I: 95.8%; P = 0.13). The second non-RCT compared 27170 participants of ALS courses 256 who underwent either 6 to 8 hours of eLearning plus 1 day of face-to-face training or a traditional 2-day face-to-face ALS course.…”

“…The question of analyzing blended-learning formats to reduce face-to-face time in ALS courses compared with traditional courses was addressed by 1 RCT 254 and 2 non-RCTs. 255,256 The heterogeneous nature of the studies prevented pooling of data for any outcome; therefore, no meta-analysis was performed.…”

“…For the important educational outcome of skill performance at course conclusion, we found low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) from 1 RCT 254 and 2 non-RCTs. 255,256 The 1 RCT randomizing 3732 participants of ALS courses to either 6 to 8 hours of eLearning plus 1 day of face to face training or to a traditional 2-day face-to-face ALS course. 254 This study was inconclusive in demonstrating noninferiority in the intervention group (C: 80.2% versus I: 74.5%; mean difference, -5.7%; 95% CI, -8.8% to -2.7%).…”