A retrospective study shows enhanced knowledge and attitudes in internal medicine residents following simulation training, suggesting improved competency.
Introduction Simulation-based training is increasingly used to teach respiratory interventions, but limited studies have evaluated its impact on both non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and supplemental oxygen delivery systems. We assessed changes in internal medicine residents’ knowledge and attitudes before and after a simulation-based training program. Methods This is a retrospective study of a simulation-based training program. There were 78 internal medicine residents from postgraduate first year (PGY1), postgraduate second year (PGY2), and postgraduate third year (PGY3) who participated in a one-hour training session, including lecture and three simulation stations covering oxygen delivery devices, high-flow nasal cannula, and bi-level positive airway pressure/continuous positive airway pressure (BIPAP/CPAP). Pre- and post-training questionnaires assessed attitudes and knowledge. Results Attitudes for comfort level or recognition increased after training (all p < 0.001), and attitudes for needing more training decreased after training (all p < 0.001). Specific knowledge increased after training with percentage-point differences ranging from 48.7% to 60.3% for all of the questions (all p < 0.001). Case scenario knowledge increased after training with percentage-point differences ranging from 29.4% to 48.7% (all p < 0.001). Knowledge differences between postgraduate years were mostly eliminated after training. All residents rated the training highly. Conclusion Simulation-based training improved attitudes and knowledge for both oxygen modalities and NIPPV. PGY1 and PGY2 residents achieved knowledge levels similar to PGY3 residents after the training. We recommend incorporating simulation-based respiratory training into residency programs to improve resident competency for both oxygen modalities and NIPPV.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: