【摘要】 目的：探讨SimMan3G模拟教学方法对提升规范化培训住院医师危机资源管理（CRM）能力的效果。方法：采用整群抽样法，选取2022年1—10月在云南省第一人民医院麻醉科进行规范化培训且报名过敏性休克课程的24名住院医师纳入本研究，采用随机数字表法将其分为麻醉SimMan3G情景模拟教学组（M1组）和麻醉传统教学组（M2组），每组12名；同时，采用整群抽样法，选取同年度在云南省第一人民医院急诊科、内科、外科进行规范化培训且报名过敏性休克SimMan3G情景模拟教学组（Z1组）和综合传统教学组（Z2组），每组48名。以术中过敏性休克为切入点，麻醉和综合SimMan3G情景模拟教学组（M1组和Z1组）采用SimMan3G情景模拟教学方法，麻醉和综合传统教学组（M2组和Z2组）采用传统教学方法。以问卷调查、非技能考核、理论及技能考核的方式来评价教学效果。结果：M1组学习兴趣、学习主动性、基础理论和技能、CRM、教学满意度方面的认可度评分均高于M2组，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。Z1组基础理论和技能、CRM方面的认可度评分均高于Z2组，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。M1组与Z1组对教学模式的认可度比较，差异无统计学意义（P> 0.05）。M2组学习兴趣、学习主动性、CRM、教学满意度方面的认可度评分低于Z2组，差异有统计学意义（P <0.05）。M1组任务管理、团队协作评分高于M2，差异有统计学意义（P <0.05）。Z1组任务管理、团队协作、状况认证和决策能力评分高于Z2，差异有统计学意义（P <0.05）。M1组任务管理、团队协作评分高于M2，差异有统计学意义（P <0.05）。Z1组任务管理、团队协作、状况认证和决策能力评分高于Z2，差异有统计学意义（P <0.05）。M1组与Z1组非技能考核评分比较，差异无统计学意义（P> 0.05）。M2组任务管理、团队协作评分高于Z2组，差异有统计学意义（P <0.05）。四组培训后理论及技能考试成绩比较，M1组技能考核成绩高于M2组，Z1组技能考核成绩高于Z2组，差异有统计学意义（P <0.05）。M1组与M2组、Z1组与Z2组理论考核成绩比较，差异无统计学意义（P> 0.05）。结论：SimMan3G情景模拟教学能显著提升规范化培训住院医师对临床危机的处理能力，有助于激发其学习兴趣、增强其学习主动性、提高学生参与度。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To explore the application of scenario simulation-based teaching based on SimMan3G in improving the ability of crisis resource management for standardised training residents. Methods From January to October 2022, 24 resident physicians who were trained in the department of anesthesiology in the first people’s hospital of yunnan province were randomly selected as study subjects. They were randomly divided into simulation group(M1 group, n = 12) and traditional group(M2 group,n = 12) by digital table method. From January to October 2022, 96 resident physicians who were trained in the department of surgery,internal medicine and emergency in the first people’s hospital of yunnan province were randomly selected as study subjects. They were randomly divided into simulation group(Z1 group, n = 48) and traditional group(Z2 group, n = 48) by digital table method.The simulation group: the theoretical teaching and SimMan3G scenario simulation-based teaching. The traditional group: the traditional theoretical teaching and problem-centered case discussion. The teaching effect is evaluated by means of questionnaire survey, non-skill assessment, theory and skill assessment. Results The recognition scores of M1 group in terms of learning interest,learning initiative, basic theory and skills, CRM, and teaching satisfaction were higher than those of M2 group, and the difference was statistically significant(P < 0.05). The recognition scores of basic theories, skills, and CRM in Z1 group were higher than those in Z2 group, and the difference was statistically significant(P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference(P > 0.05) in the recognition of teaching mode between M1 group and Z1 group. The recognition scores of M2 group in terms of learning interest,learning initiative, CRM and teaching satisfaction were lower than those of Z2 group, and the difference was statistically significant(P < 0.05). The task management and team collaboration scores of M1 group were higher than those of M2 group, and the difference was statistically significant(P < 0.05). The task management, team collaboration, status verification, and decision-making ability scores of Z1 group were higher than Z2 group, and the difference was statistically significant(P < 0.05). The task management and team collaboration scores of M1 group were higher than those of M2 group, and the difference was statistically significant(P < 0.05).The task management, team collaboration, status verification, and decision-making ability scores of Z1 group were higher than Z2group, and the difference was statistically significant(P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference(P > 0.05) in the non skill assessment scores between M1 group and Z1 group. The task management and team collaboration scores of M2 group were higher than those of Z2 group, and the difference was statistically significant(P < 0.05). The comparison of theoretical and skill exam scores among the four groups after training showed that the M1 group had higher skill assessment scores than the M2 group, and the Z1 group had higher skill assessment scores than the Z2 group, with statistical significance(P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference(P > 0.05) in the theoretical assessment scores between M1 group and M2 group, Z1 group and Z2 group.Conclusions SimMan3G scenario simulation-based teaching could improve technical performance of the students, cultivate crisis response thinking of students, improve the communication and collaboration ability of perioperative team, and improve the clinical teaching effect.更多还原