Comparing the Results of Written Testing for Advanced Cardiac Life Support Teaching Using Team-based Learning and the Flipped Classroom Strategy

摘要

ObjectivesWe sought to further determine whether cognitive test results changed for advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) taught in the team-based learning/flipped classroom format (TBL/FC) versus a lecture-based (LB) control.MethodsWe delivered 2010 ACLS to two classes of fourth-year medical students in the TBL/FC format (2015–2016), compared to three classes in the LB format (2012–2014). There were 27.5 hours of instruction for the TBL/FC model (TBL - 10.5 hours, podcasts - nine hours, small-group simulation - eight hours), and 20 hours (lectures - 12 hours, simulation - eight hours) in LB. We taught TBL for 13 cardiac cases while LB had none. Didactic content and seven simulated cases were the same in lecture (2012–2014) or in podcast formats (2015–2016). Testing was the same using 50 multiple-choice (MC) format questions, 20 rhythm-matching questions, and seven fill-in management of simulated cases.ResultsSome 468 students enrolled in the course 259 (55.4%) in the LB format in 2012–2014, and 209 (44.6%) in the TBL/FC format in 2015–2016. The scores for two out of three tests (MC and fill-in) increased with TBL/FC. Combined, median scores increased from 93.5% (IQR 90.6, 95.4) to 95.1% (92.5, 96.8, p = 0.0001). More students did not pass one of three tests with LB versus TBL/FC (24.7% versus 18.2%), and two or three parts of the test (8.1% versus 4.3%, p = 0.01). On the contrary, 77.5% passed all three with TBL/FC versus 67.2% with LB (change 10.3%, 95% CI 2.2%–18.2%).ConclusionTBL/FC teaching for ACLS improved written test results compared with the LB format.