Program evaluation reveals substantial gains in physician confidence after blended-learning RSI training, indicating educational effectiveness.
Background: Rapid Sequence Intubation (RSI) is a high-risk, time-critical procedure in emergency medicine. Standardizing its practice across a multinational workforce with diverse training backgrounds remains a persistent educational challenge. This mixed-methods program evaluation assessed a blended-learning RSI program’s impact on self-reported physician confidence and perceived educational value within a tertiary emergency care setting. Methods: A retrospective evaluation was conducted for a blended-learning RSI curriculum delivered between 2020 and 2022. The program combined asynchronous online modules with a 4-hour, small-group simulation-based practical session. A voluntary, anonymous post-program survey was administered in 2025 following IRB approval. Outcomes included retrospective pre-post self-reported confidence (5-point Likert scale), satisfaction with program components, and qualitative feedback. No objective performance measures were assessed. Results: Forty-five of 141 eligible physicians completed the survey (adjusted response rate 42%). Self-reported low confidence decreased from 77.8% pre-course to 6.6% post-course, while high confidence increased from 22.2% to 93.4% (Cohen’s d = 2.1). Improvements were consistent across professional grades. The simulation-based session received the highest satisfaction rating (mean 4.3/5). Qualitative analysis highlighted the value of realistic simulation, structured debriefing, and standardized checklists. Suggested improvements included more complex scenarios and enhanced online interactivity. Conclusion: Participation in a blended-learning RSI program was associated with substantial improvement in self-reported physician confidence and high satisfaction among a multinational emergency medicine workforce. These findings support the feasibility and perceived value of this educational approach for high-risk procedural training in similar settings, though objective competence was not evaluated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmad et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: