Rapid cycle deliberate practice: application in forceps simulation training for gynecology and obstetrics residents

Figures & data

Table 1. General characteristics of obstetrics and gynecology residents who underwent second-year standardized residency training.

	RCDP group (n = 30)	TTM group (n = 30)	z/F	p-value
Age, years	25 (24–27)	25 (24–26.25)	−0.167	.867
Sex			0.132	.936
Female	26	25
Male	4	5
Education background			0.111	.739
Bachelor	24	25
Postgraduate	1	1
Doctor	5	4
Years of working	0 (0–1)	0 (0–1)	0.463	.643

RCDP: Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice; TTM: Traditional Teaching Method.

Figure 1. Distribution of testing scores before and after forceps simulation training of residents in RCDP and TTM groups. RCDP: Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice; TTM: traditional teaching method.

Table 2. The immediate scores after training of two groups. [M (P25, P75)].

	RCDP group (n = 30)	TTM group (n = 30)	z	p-value
Section A: preparation	28.00 (27.00, 29.00)	26.00 (25.00, 27.25)	4.26	<.001
Section B: placement	22.00 (21.00, 23.25)	21.00 (20.00, 21.25)	3.89	<.001
Section C: closing	26.00 (15.00, 17.00)	15.00 (14.00, 16.00)	2.61	.01
Section D: traction	25.50 (24.75, 28.00)	27.00 (26.00, 28.00)	2.19	.03
Total score	92.00 (90.00, 94.00)	88.00 (86.75, 92.00)	3.79	<.001

RCDP: Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice; TTM: Traditional Teaching Method.

Table 3. Evaluation distribution of the SSE scales in the RCDP and TTM groups, n(%).

Items	RCDP group					TTM group						p
	Strongly disagree	Disagree	not sure	agree	completely agree	Strongly disagree	disagree	not sure	agree	completely agree	F
Debrief and reflection
The facilitator provided constructive criticism during the debriefing	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	2 (6.67)	28 (93.33)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	2 (6.67)	3 (10.00)	25 (83.33)	2.37	.31
The facilitator summarized important issues during the debriefing	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	3 (10.00)	27 (90.00)	0 (0.00)	2 (6.67)	1 (3.33)	3 (10.00)	24 (80.00)	3.18	.36
I had the opportunity to reflect on and discuss my performance during the debriefing	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	1 (3.33)	5 (16.67)	24 (80.00)	0 (0.00)	5 (16.67)	3 (10.00)	5 (16.67)	17 (56.67)	7.20	.07
The debriefing provided an opportunity to ask questions	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	5 (16.67)	25 (83.33)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	1 (3.33)	3 (10.00)	26 (86.67)	1.52	.47
The facilitator provided feedback that helped me to develop my clinical reasoning skills	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	2 (6.67)	28 (93.33)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	3 (10.00)	6 (20.00)	21 (70.00)	6.00	.05
Reflecting on and discussing the simulation enhanced my learning	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	2 (6.67)	5 (16.67)	23 (76.67)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	3 (10.00)	10 (33.33)	17 (56.67)	2.77	.25
The facilitator’s questions helped me to learn, n (%)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	1 (3.33)	3 (10.00)	26 (86.67)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	1 (3.33)	1 (3.33)	28 (93.33)	1.07	.58
I received feedback during the debriefing that helped me to learn	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	1 (3.33)	29 (96.67)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	4 (13.33)	6 (20.00)	20 (66.67)	10.66	.04
The facilitator made me feel comfortable and at ease during the debriefing	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	4 (13.33)	26 (86.67)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	2 (6.67)	2 (6.67)	26 (86.67)	3.31	.19
Clinical reasoning
The simulation developed my clinical reasoning skill	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	5 (16.67)	25 (83.33)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	2 (6.67)	4 (13.33)	24 (80.00)	2.13	.34
The simulation developed my clinical decision making ability	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	1 (3.33)	3 (10.00)	26 (86.67)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	4 (13.33)	1 (3.33)	25 (83.33)	2.82	.24
The simulation enabled me to demonstrate my clinical reasoning skills	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	5 (16.67)	6 (20.00)	19 (63.33)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	7 (23.33)	2 (6.67)	21 (70.00)	2.43	.30
The simulation helped me to recognize patient deterioration early	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	6 (20.00)	4 (13.33)	20 (66.67)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	6 (20.00)	6 (20.00)	18 (60.00)	0.51	.78
This was a valuable learning experience	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	2 (6.67)	28 (93.33)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	3 (10.00)	27 (90.00)	0.22	.64
Clinical learning
The simulation caused me to reflect on my clinical ability	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	30 (100)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	2 (6.67)	28 (93.33)	2.07	.15
The simulation tested my clinical ability	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	2 (6.67)	28 (93.33)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	3 (10.00)	27 (90.00)	0.22	.64
The simulation helped me to apply what I learned from the case stud	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	3 (10.00)	27 (90.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	1 (3.33)	29 (96.67)	1.07	.30
The simulation helped me to recognize my clinical strengths and weaknesses	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	5 (16.67)	25 (83.33)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	1 (3.33)	29 (96.67)	2.96	.85

SSE: Satisfaction with Simulation Experience; RCDP: Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice; TTM: Traditional Teaching Method.

Table 4. SSE scale scores in the RCDP and TTM groups [M (P25, P75)].

Scores	RCDP group	TTM group	z	p-value
Debrief and reflection	44.00 (43.00, 45.00)	41.00 (41.50, 43.00)	5.239	<.001
Clinical reasoning	24.00 (22.00, 25.00)	23.00 (22.75, 24.00)	1.642	.101
Clinical learning	20.00 (19.00, 20.00)	20.00 (19.75, 20.00)	0.852	.394
Total	87.00 (86.00, 88.25)	84.00 (83.00, 86.25)	4.741	<.001

SSE: Satisfaction with Simulation Experience; RCDP: Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice; TTM: Traditional Teaching Method.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.