Research ArticleProgram Description

Are you ready for an office code blue?

Online video to prepare for office emergencies

Simon Moore
Canadian Family Physician January 2015, 61 (1) e9-e16;

Article Figures & Data

Figures

Tables

  • Table 1

    Incorporation of evidence-based educational techniques into the program

    EVIDENCE-BASED EDUCATIONAL TECHNIQUEDESCRIPTIONHOW TECHNIQUE WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE PROGRAM
    Needs assessmentConduct a needs assessment to maximize relevance37Video was created in response to previously published needs assessments that demonstrated the necessity of improvement in this area1–7,14–17
    Commitment to changeEmphasizing opportunity for change and soliciting commitment predicts actual change in practice37Video was concluded by highlighting changes that could be implemented in a clinic immediately
    Multimedia and multifacetedMultimedia and multifaceted educational components have been shown to be more effective than a single educational component such as a video by itself36,37Additional resources mentioned in the video (posters, checklists, practice audit forms, and articles) were published on the program website
    InteractionInteraction takes many forms, including active reflection on gaps in performance or skills practice37Video strongly encouraged active reflection on gaps in performance (practice audit) and skills practice (mock codes)
  • Table 2

    Self-reported demographic characteristics of all survey respondents: N = 275.

    CHARACTERISTICN (%)
    Physicians
      • FPs136 (49.5)
      • Other specialists20 (7.3)
      • Total156 (56.7)
    Residents
      • FP residents71 (25.8)
      • Other residents5 (1.8)
    Medical clinic staff20 (7.3)
    Nurses16 (5.8)
    Other*7 (2.5)
    Location
      • Canada259 (94.2)
      • United States2 (0.7)
      • Elsewhere†3 (1.1)
      • Not given11 (4.0)

    • ↵* Staff categorized as “other” were excluded from further analysis: 2 medical students, 2 chiropractors, 1 medical school administrator, 1 athletic therapist, and 1 nursing student.

    • ↵† Those categorized as being from “elsewhere” included 2 respondents from Ireland and 1 from Australia.

  • Table 3

    results of the survey conducted after watching the video assessing attitudes toward video content and format, by self-reported occupation: N = 268.

    QUESTIONFPs, % (95% CI), N = 136OTHER SPECIALISTS, % (95% CI), N = 20RESIDENTS, % (95% CI), N = 76NURSES, % (95% CI), N = 16MEDICAL CLINIC STAFF, % (95% CI), N = 20
    Presentation related to my needs
      • Disagree or strongly disagree2.2 (0.0 to 4.7)30.0 (8.0 to 52.0)1.3 (0.0 to 3.9)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)
      • Undecided5.1 (1.4 to 8.9)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)9.2 (2.6 to 15.9)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)5.0 (0.0 to 15.5)
      • Agree or strongly agree92.6 (88.2 to 97.1)70.0 (48.0 to 92.0)89.5 (82.4 to 96.5)100 (100.0 to 100.0)95.0 (84.5 to 100.0)
    Presentation increased my knowledge
      • Disagree or strongly disagree6.6 (2.4 to 10.8)5.0 (0.0 to 15.5)2.6 (0.0 to 6.3)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)
      • Undecided8.8 (4.0 to 13.7)15.0 (0.0 to 32.1)9.2 (2.6 to 15.9)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)10.0 (0.0 to 24.4)
      • Agree or strongly agree84.6 (78.4 to 90.7)80.0 (60.8 to 99.2)88.2 (80.7 to 95.6)100 (100.0 to 100.0)90.0 (75.6 to 100.0)
    Presentation met my expectations
      • Disagree or strongly disagree5.1 (1.4 to 8.9)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)
      • Undecided6.6 (2.4 to 10.9)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)9.2 (2.6 to 15.9)6.3 (0.0 to 19.6)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)
      • Agree or strongly agree84.6 (78.4 to 90.7)100 (100.0 to 100.0)90.8 (84.1 to 97.4)93.8 (80.4 to 100.0)100 (100.0 to 100.0)
    Length of the presentation was appropriate
      • Disagree or strongly disagree2.9 (0.1 to 5.8)5.0 (0.0 to 15.5)2.6 (0.0 to 6.3)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)
      • Undecided5.9 (1.9 to 9.9)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)3.9 (0.0 to 8.4)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)
      • Agree or strongly agree91.2 (86.3 to 96.0)95.0 (84.5 to 100.0)93.4 (87.7 to 99.1)100 (100.0 to 100.0)100 (100.0 to 100.0)
    Material was well presented
      • Disagree or strongly disagree2.2 (0.0 to 4.7)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)5.0 (0.0 to 15.5)
      • Undecided3.7 (0.5 to 6.9)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)3.9 (0.0 to 8.4)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)
      • Agree or strongly agree94.1 (90.1 to 98.1)100 (100.0 to 100.0)96.1 (91.6 to 100.0)100 (100.0 to 100.0)95.0 (84.5 to 100.0)
    Presenter was knowledgeable
      • Disagree or strongly disagree2.2 (0.0 to 4.7)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)1.3 (0.0 to 3.9)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)
      • Undecided4.4 (0.9 to 7.9)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)2.6 (0.0 to 6.3)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)5.0 (0.0 to 15.5)
      • Agree or strongly agree93.4 (89.2 to 97.6)100 (100.0 to 100.0)96.1 (91.6 to 100.0)100 (100.0 to 100.0)95.0 (84.5 to 100.0)
    This technology was satisfactory
      • Disagree or strongly disagree2.9 (0.1 to 5.8)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)
      • Undecided0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)3.9 (0.0 to 8.4)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)5.0 (0.0 to 15.5)
      • Agree or strongly agree97.1 (94.2 to 99.9)100 (100.0 to 100.0)96.1 (91.6 to 100.0)100 (100.0 to 100.0)95.0 (84.5 to 100.0)
    Technology did not detract from the presentation
      • Disagree or strongly disagree2.2 (0.0 to 4.7)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)
      • Undecided2.2 (0.0 to 4.7)5.0 (0.0 to 15.5)5.3 (0.1 to 10.4)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)5.0 (0.0 to 15.5)
      • Agree or strongly agree95.6 (92.1 to 99.1)95.0 (84.5 to 100.0)94.7 (89.6 to 99.9)100 (100.0 to 100.0)95.0 (84.5 to 100.0)
    This technology was as effective as traditional methods
      • Disagree or strongly disagree3.7 (0.5 to 6.9)5.0 (0.0 to 15.5)6.6 (0.9 to 12.3)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)10.0 (0.0 to 24.4)
      • Undecided7.4 (2.9 to 11.8)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)11.8 (4.4 to 19.3)6.3 (0.0 to 19.6)15.0 (0.0 to 32.1)
      • Agree or strongly agree88.9 (83.6 to 94.3)95.0 (84.5 to 100.0)81.6 (72.7 to 90.5)93.8 (80.4 to 100.0)75.0 (54.2 to 95.8)
    I would take other courses that use this technology
      • Disagree or strongly disagree2.9 (0.1 to 5.8)5.0 (0.0 to 15.5)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)
      • Undecided13.9 (8.1 to 19.9)5.0 (0.0 to 15.5)14.5 (6.4 to 22.6)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)20.0 (0.8 to 39.2)
      • Agree or strongly agree83.1 (76.7 to 89.5)90.0 (75.6 to 100.0)85.5 (77.4 to 93.6)100 (100.0 to 100.0)80.0 (60.8 to 99.2)
    This technology is the most convenient way for me to take this training
      • Disagree or strongly disagree5.1 (1.4 to 8.9)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)2.6 (0.0 to 6.3)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)
      • Undecided14.7 (8.7 to 20.7)20.0 (0.8 to 39.2)14.5 (6.4 to 22.6)6.3 (0.0 to 19.6)15.0 (0.0 to 32.1)
      • Agree or strongly agree80.1 (73.4 to 86.9)80.0 (60.8 to 99.2)82.9 (74.2 to 91.6)93.8 (80.4 to 100.0)85.0 (67.9 to 100.0)
    Information will enhance patient care
      • Disagree or strongly disagree2.9 (0.1 to 5.8)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)
      • Undecided8.1 (3.4 to 12.7)10.0 (0.0 to 24.4)7.9 (1.7 to 14.1)0.0 (0.0 to 0.0)10.0 (0.0 to 24.4)
      • Agree or strongly agree88.9 (83.6 to 94.3)90.0 (75.6 to 100.0)92.1 (85.9 to 98.3)100 (100.0 to 100.0)90.0 (75.6 to 100.0)
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Respond to this article
Are you ready for an office code blue?
Simon Moore
Canadian Family Physician Jan 2015, 61 (1) e9-e16;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section