论文部分内容阅读
目的对脑死亡脑电图确认试验培训效果进行分析,以发现培训模式存在的问题,并加以改进和完善。方法采用理论培训、模拟技能培训、床旁技能培训和考核后培训的方式对114名学员进行脑电图确认试验的培训与考核,单因素和多因素后退法Logistic回归分析评价学员性别、年龄、专科类别、专业岗位、专业技术职称和医院级别等因素对知识点考核错误率的影响。结果 114名学员中30~49岁占79.82%(91/114),主要来自三级甲等医院(94.74%,108/114)的神经内科(57.89%,66/114)和电生理科(19.30%,22/114),其中医师占85.96%(98/114),中级职称占45.61%(52/114)。5项知识点考核总错误率为9.19%(204/2221),由高至低依次为脑电图参数设置11.40%(26/228)、结果判定10.44%(80/766)、记录方法10.25%(69/673)、环境要求7.46%(17/228)和注意事项3.68%(12/326);其中,>50岁学员错误率高于其他年龄者(均P=0.000),技师错误率高于医师(P=0.039)。单因素和多因素Logistic回归分析显示,仅年龄是导致考核错误率高的独立危险因素(OR=1.382,95%CI:1.156~1.652;P=0.000)。结论不同学员对知识点的掌握程度存在差异,应加强针对重点对象的培训力度,重视脑死亡脑电图确认试验与常规脑电图监测的区别,提高脑死亡脑电图确认试验的判定质量。
Objective To analyze the effect of brain EEG confirmation test training to find out the problems in training mode and to improve and perfect it. Methods The training and assessment of 114 trainees in confirmatory electroencephalogram (EEG) test were conducted by theoretical training, simulation skills training, bedside skill training and post-examination training. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the trainees’ sex, age, Specialist categories, professional positions, professional and technical titles and the level of hospitals and other factors on the error rate of knowledge assessment. Results Of the 114 trainees, 79.82% (91/114) were from 30 to 49 years old, mainly from neurology (57.89%, 66/114) and electrophysiology (19.30%) in Grade A hospitals (94.74%, 108/114) %, 22/114). Among them, doctors accounted for 85.96% (98/114) and intermediate titles accounted for 45.61% (52/114). The total error rate of the five knowledge points assessment was 9.19% (204/2221). The highest and lowest EEG values were 11.40% (26/228), the results were 10.44% (80/766) and the recording method was 10.25% (69/673), 7.46% (17/228) of environmental requirements and 3.68% (12/326) of cautions. Among them, the error rate of students aged> 50 was higher than that of other ages (all P = 0.000) At Physician (P = 0.039). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that age alone was an independent risk factor leading to a high false-positive rate (OR = 1.382, 95% CI: 1.156-1.652; P = 0.000). Conclusion Different students have different mastery degree of knowledge points. Training on key subjects should be strengthened. The distinction between brain EEG confirmation test and routine EEG monitoring should be emphasized, and the quality of judgment of brain EEG confirmation test should be improved.