The Editor-in-Chief notes with sadness that author, Russell Boyd, has died since work commenced on the paper.
Comparison of high- and low-fidelity mannequins for clinical performance assessment
Article first published online: 1 JAN 2009
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine
Emergency Medicine Australasia
Volume 20, Issue 6, pages 508–514, December 2008
How to Cite
Lee, K. H. K., Grantham, H. and Boyd, R. (2008), Comparison of high- and low-fidelity mannequins for clinical performance assessment. Emergency Medicine Australasia, 20: 508–514. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2008.01137.x
Kenneth Lee, MB BS, MBus, FACEM, FJFICM, Clinical Associate Lecturer University of Adelaide and ICU Consultant; Hugh Grantham, MB BS, FRACGP, Medical Director South Australian Ambulance Service; Russell Boyd, BsC, MBChB, MRCP(UK), FFAEM, FACEM, Emergency Department Director.
Study location: Lyell McEwin Health Service, Haydown Road, Elizabeth Vale 5112, South Australia.
- Issue published online: 1 JAN 2009
- Article first published online: 1 JAN 2009
- Accepted 1 October 2008
Objective: A pilot study exploring the differences between high- and low-fidelity mannequins in the assessment of clinical performance.
Methods: Standardized clinical scenarios were used to test 12 intensive care paramedics (ICP). Each ICP was randomly assigned to a scenario using either a high-fidelity (SimMan) or low-fidelity mannequin (Laerdal Heart Start 2000), followed by a crossover assessment using the alternative scenario. We examined both the objective and subjective outcomes. Objective performance was assessed by three independent assessors, all accredited Advanced Paediatric Life Support instructors. Subjective outcomes were measured by assessment questionnaires and a rating scale.
Results: The overall proportion that passed the high-fidelity mannequin scenario was 0.47 compared with 0.58 in the low-fidelity mannequin scenario. The difference was −0.11 (95% CI −0.32–0.11). The subjective outcomes were charted and presented within the article. The ICP preferred the use of high-fidelity mannequin for assessment purpose.
Conclusion: There was no significant objective difference between the two mannequins.