J Educ Eval Health Prof.  2016;13:11. 10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.11.

Flipping the advanced cardiac life support classroom with team-based learning: comparison of cognitive testing performance for medical students at the University of California, Irvine, United State

• Boysen-Osborn M
• Anderson C
• Navarro R
• Yanuck J
• Strom S
• McCoy CE
• Youm J
• Ypma-Wong
• Langdorf M

• KMID: 2413760
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.11

Abstract

PURPOSE
It aimed to find if written test results improved for advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) taught in flipped classroom/team-based Learning (FC/TBL) vs. lecture-based (LB) control in University of California-Irvine School of Medicine, USA.
METHODS
Medical students took 2010 ACLS with FC/TBL (2015), compared to 3 classes in LB (2012-14) format. There were 27.5 hours of instruction for FC/TBL model (TBL 10.5, podcasts 9, small-group simulation 8 hours), and 20 (12 lecture, simulation 8 hours) in LB. TBL covered 13 cardiac cases; LB had none. Seven simulation cases and didactic content were the same by lecture (2012-14) or podcast (2015) as was testing: 50 multiple-choice questions (MCQ), 20 rhythm matchings, and 7 fill-in clinical cases.
RESULTS
354 students took the course (259 [73.1%] in LB in 2012-14, and 95 [26.9%] in FC/TBL in 2015). Two of 3 tests (MCQ and fill-in) improved for FC/TBL. Overall, median scores increased from 93.5% (IQR 90.6, 95.4) to 95.1% (92.8, 96.7, P=0.0001). For the fill-in test: 94.1% for LB (89.6, 97.2) to 96.6% for FC/TBL (92.4, 99.20 P=0.0001). For MC: 88% for LB (84, 92) to 90% for FC/TBL (86, 94, P=0.0002). For the rhythm test: median 100% for both formats. More students failed 1 of 3 tests with LB vs. FC/TBL (24.7% vs. 14.7%), and 2 or 3 components (8.1% vs. 3.2%, P=0.006). Conversely, 82.1% passed all 3 with FC/TBL vs. 67.2% with LB (difference 14.9%, 95% CI 4.8-24.0%).
CONCLUSION
A FC/TBL format for ACLS marginally improved written test results.

Keyword

Advanced cardiac life support; Choice behavior; Learning; Students; United States

MeSH Terms

Advanced Cardiac Life Support*
California*
Choice Behavior
Humans
Learning*
Students, Medical*
United States

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Downward trend within each day for the assigned podcast viewing by medical students during the advanced cardiac life support classroom in the University of California-Irvine School of Medicine, the United States of America.

• 

  Fig. 2. Maintained or increased proportion of each of 23 podcasts viewed until final podcast on acute ischemic stroke for students during the advanced cardiac life support classroom in the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, United States.

Reference

References

1. Subramanian A, Timberlake M, Mittakanti H, Lara M, Brandt ML. Novel educational approach for medical students: improved retention rates using interactive medical software compared with traditional lecture-based format. J Surg Educ. 2012; 2012:449–452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2012.05.013.

2. Littlewood KE, Shilling AM, Stemland CJ, Wright EB, Kirk MA. High-fidelity simulation is superior to case-based discussion in teaching the management of shock. Med Teach. 2013; 35:e1003–1010.

3. Center for research on learning and teaching. Active learning [Internet]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan;2012. [cited 2016 Jan 1]. Available from: http://www.crlt.umich.edu/tstrategies/tsal.

4. Thompson BM, Schneider VF, Haidet P, Levine RE, McMahon KK, Perkowski LC, Richards BF. Team-based learning at ten medical schools: two years later. Med Educ. 2007; 41:250–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02684.x.

5. Wayne DB, Butter J, Siddall VJ, Fudala MJ, Wade LD, Feinglass J, McGaghie WC. Mastery learning of advanced cardiac life support skills by internal medicine residents using simulation technology and deliberate practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2006; 21:251–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00341.x.

6. American Heart Association. 2015 ACLS Guideline Update [Internet]. Dalls, TX: American Heart Association;2015. Available from: http://view.heartemail.org/?j=fe581176716c07757410&m=fe681570756c02757514&ls=fdbb1573706d07747d11717762&l=fe8713787760007572&s=fe3015777561047c741379&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe24107971630d7d751274&r=0.

7. Sinz E, Navarro K, Soderberg ES. Advanced cardiovascular life support provider manual. Dalls, TX: American Heart Association;2011.

8. Rodgers DL, Bhanji F, McKee BR. Written evaluation is not a predictor for skills performance in an advanced cardiovascular life support course. Resuscitation. 2010; 81:453–456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.12.01.

9. Strom SL, Anderson CL, Yang L, Canales C, Amin A, Lotfipour S, McCoy CE, Langdorf MI. Correlation of simulation examination to written test scores for advanced cardiac life support testing: prospective cohort study. West J Emerg Med. 2015; 16:907–912. http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2015.10.26974.

10. Brame C. Flipping the classroom [Internet]. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching;2013. [cited 2016 Jan 1]. Available from: http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/flipping-the-classroom/.