E‐learning in transfusion medicine: An exploratory qualitative assessment

Author:

Al‐Riyami Arwa Z.1ORCID,Jensen Kyle2ORCID,So‐Osman Cynthia34ORCID,Saxon Ben5ORCID,Rahimi‐Levene Naomi6ORCID,Das Soumya7ORCID,Stanworth Simon J.8ORCID,Lin Yulia9ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Haematology Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, University Medical City Muscat Oman

2. Research and Development, Australian Red Cross Lifeblood Brisbane Queensland Australia

3. Unit Transfusion Medicine, Sanquin Blood Supply Foundation Amsterdam The Netherlands

4. Department of Haematology Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam The Netherlands

5. Department of Haematology/Oncology Women's and Children's Hospital Adelaide Australia

6. Blood Bank, Shamir Medical Center, Zerifin, Adelson School of Medicine, Ariel University Ariel Israel

7. Department of Transfusion Medicine All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Nagpur India

8. NHSBT/Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust/University of Oxford and ICTMG Oxford UK

9. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, University of Toronto Quality in Utilization, Education and Safety in Transfusion (QUEST) Research Program Toronto Ontario Canada

Abstract

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesE‐learning programmes are increasingly offered in transfusion medicine (TM) education. The aim of this study was to explore facilitators and barriers to TM e‐learning programmes, including assessment of learning outcomes and measures of effectiveness.Materials and MethodsParticipants selected from a prior survey and representing a diverse number of international e‐learning programmes were invited to participate. A mixed methodology was employed, combining a survey and individual semi‐structured one‐on‐one interviews. Interview data were analysed inductively to explore programme development, evaluation, and facilitators and barriers to implementation.ResultsFourteen participants representing 13 institutions participated in the survey and 10 were interviewed. The e‐learning programmes have been in use for a variable duration between 5 and 16 years. Funding sources varied, including government and institutional support. Learner assessment methods varied and encompassed multiple‐choice‐questions (n = 12), direct observation (n = 4) and competency assessment (n = 4). Most regional and national blood collection agencies rely on user feedback and short‐term learning assessments to evaluate their programmes. Only one respondent indicated an attempt to correlate e‐learning with clinical practices. Factors that facilitated programme implementation included support from management and external audits to ensure compliance with regulatory educational and training requirements. Barriers to programme implementation included the allocation of staff time for in‐house development, enforcing compliance, keeping educational content up‐to‐date and gaining access to outcome data for educational providers.ConclusionThere is evidence of considerable diversity in the evaluation of e‐learning programmes. Further work is needed to understand the ultimate impact of TM e‐learning on transfusion practices and patient outcomes.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3