2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/159508
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Evaluation of Pulmonary Artery Catheter Education Program - Level I
Abstract:
Evaluation of Pulmonary Artery Catheter Education Program - Level I
Conference Sponsor:Midwest Nursing Research Society
Conference Year:2002
Author:Kravutskie, Mary
P.I. Institution Name:Henry Ford Health System
Title:Interim Administrative Director
Contact Address:1 Ford Place, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA
Introduction: In 1997, the FDA and NHLBI charged a team of clinical experts from major professional organizations to address clinicians' serious knowledge inadequacies on hemodynamic monitoring (HDM). In response, an educational program (Pulmonary Artery Catheter Education Program -PACEP) was developed, including various levels of complexity. Level I provides basic information considered necessary for safe HDM. The format consisted of a PowerPoint slide presentation with instructors' notes. Purpose: To evaluate and validate Level I of PACEP using critical care nurses at 3 US sites. Methods: A test-retest, 2-group design was used to compare the lecture (L) delivery of material with self-study (SS) delivery. RN's at 3 sites participated; 2 used the L format, one used SS. Approximately 7 hours were allotted for both groups. All subjects completed a 60 question pre- and post-test, demographic and evaluation forms. Results: 349 nurses participated in the study (L=181 and SS=168), 88% female with 44% between the ages of 30-39 (range 20 to 60+ years). Pretest mean scores were 28.77 (48%) L group; 35.96 (60%) SS group. Post-test results were 42.83 (71%) for L; 45.54 (76%) for SS. Subject evaluation of PACEP included using a combination teaching method, spending more time on waveform analysis, and providing written reference materials. Conclusions: Both methods of PACEP improved knowledge level. However, the post-test scores remained below acceptable levels. Recommendations to the PACEP committee for further development of the program include: increase time for delivery, provide more practice and written materials, and provide a combination of delivery modes.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Midwest Nursing Research Society

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleEvaluation of Pulmonary Artery Catheter Education Program - Level Ien_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/159508-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Evaluation of Pulmonary Artery Catheter Education Program - Level I</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Midwest Nursing Research Society</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2002</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Kravutskie, Mary</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">Henry Ford Health System</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Interim Administrative Director</td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">1 Ford Place, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Introduction: In 1997, the FDA and NHLBI charged a team of clinical experts from major professional organizations to address clinicians' serious knowledge inadequacies on hemodynamic monitoring (HDM). In response, an educational program (Pulmonary Artery Catheter Education Program -PACEP) was developed, including various levels of complexity. Level I provides basic information considered necessary for safe HDM. The format consisted of a PowerPoint slide presentation with instructors' notes. Purpose: To evaluate and validate Level I of PACEP using critical care nurses at 3 US sites. Methods: A test-retest, 2-group design was used to compare the lecture (L) delivery of material with self-study (SS) delivery. RN's at 3 sites participated; 2 used the L format, one used SS. Approximately 7 hours were allotted for both groups. All subjects completed a 60 question pre- and post-test, demographic and evaluation forms. Results: 349 nurses participated in the study (L=181 and SS=168), 88% female with 44% between the ages of 30-39 (range 20 to 60+ years). Pretest mean scores were 28.77 (48%) L group; 35.96 (60%) SS group. Post-test results were 42.83 (71%) for L; 45.54 (76%) for SS. Subject evaluation of PACEP included using a combination teaching method, spending more time on waveform analysis, and providing written reference materials. Conclusions: Both methods of PACEP improved knowledge level. However, the post-test scores remained below acceptable levels. Recommendations to the PACEP committee for further development of the program include: increase time for delivery, provide more practice and written materials, and provide a combination of delivery modes.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T22:04:50Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T22:04:50Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipMidwest Nursing Research Societyen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.