Browsing by Author "Tenner, Andrea"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Evaluation of the World Health Organization’s basic emergency care course and online cases in Uganda
    (2019) Friedman, Alexandra; Wallis, Lee; Tenner, Andrea
    Background Uganda lacks formal emergency care training programs to address its high burden of acute illness and injury. The Ugandan Ministry of Health (MoH) rolled out the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Basic Emergency Care (BEC) course, the first openaccess short course to provide comprehensive basic emergency training for health workers in low-resource settings. The BEC and its new online cases both require further evaluation. Aim and Objectives The study aimed to assess the BEC course and online cases’ impact with the following objectives: 1. Determine participants’ knowledge acquisition and self-efficacy in emergency care. 2. Evaluate BEC participants’ perceptions of the course and online cases. 3. Assess the online cases’ impact on participants’ knowledge and self-efficacy in emergency care. Methods Mixed methods design explored the BEC’s impact. MCQs and Likert scales assessed knowledge and self-efficacy, respectively, among 137 participants pre-BEC, post-BEC and six-months post-BEC using mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA). FGDs assessed perceptions of the course and online cases post-BEC and six-months postBEC among 74 participants using thematic content analysis. Results Participants gained and maintained significant increases in MCQ averages and Likert scores. The pre-course cases group scored significantly higher on the pre-test MCQ than controls (p=0.004) and found cases most useful pre-BEC. Nurses experienced more significant initial gains and long-term decays in MCQ and self-rated knowledge than doctors (p=0.009, p< 0.05). Providers valued the ABCDE approach and reported improved emergency care management post-BEC. Resource constraints, untrained colleagues and knowledge decay limited the course’s utility. Conclusions Basic emergency care courses for low-resource settings can increase frontline providers’ long-term knowledge and self-efficacy in emergency care. Nurses experience greater initial gains and long-term losses in knowledge than doctors. Online adjuncts can enhance health professional education in LMICs. Future efforts should focus on increasing trainings and determining the need for re-training.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Towards developing a consensus assessment framework for global emergency medicine fellowships
    (2019-11-11) Jahn, Haiko K; Kwan, James; O’Reilly, Gerard; Geduld, Heike; Douglass, Katherine; Tenner, Andrea; Wallis, Lee; Tupesis, Janis; Mowafi, Hani O
    Abstract Background The number of Global Emergency Medicine (GEM) Fellowship training programs are increasing worldwide. Despite the increasing number of GEM fellowships, there is not an agreed upon approach for assessment of GEM trainees. Main body In order to study the lack of standardized assessment in GEM fellowship training, a working group was established between the International EM Fellowship Consortium (IEMFC) and the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM). A needs assessment survey of IEMFC members and a review were undertaken to identify assessment tools currently in use by GEM fellowship programs; what relevant frameworks exist; and common elements used by programs with a wide diversity of emphases. A consensus framework was developed through iterative working group discussions. Thirty-two of 40 GEM fellowships responded (80% response). There is variability in the use and format of formal assessment between programs. Thirty programs reported training GEM fellows in the last 3 years (94%). Eighteen (56%) reported only informal assessments of trainees. Twenty-seven (84%) reported regular meetings for assessment of trainees. Eleven (34%) reported use of a structured assessment of any sort for GEM fellows and, of these, only 2 (18%) used validated instruments modified from general EM residency assessment tools. Only 3 (27%) programs reported incorporation of formal written feedback from partners in other countries. Using these results along with a review of the available assessment tools in GEM the working group developed a set of principles to guide GEM fellowship assessments along with a sample assessment for use by GEM fellowship programs seeking to create their own customized assessments. Conclusion There are currently no widely used assessment frameworks for GEM fellowship training. The working group made recommendations for developing standardized assessments aligned with competencies defined by the programs, that characterize goals and objectives of training, and document progress of trainees towards achieving those goals. Frameworks used should include perspectives of multiple stakeholders including partners in other countries where trainees conduct field work. Future work may evaluate the usability, validity and reliability of assessment frameworks in GEM fellowship training.