Flipped Classroom: Improved team performance during resuscitation training through interactive pre-course content – a cluster-randomised controlled study

Abstract Background Resuscitation is a team effort, and it is increasingly acknowledged that team cooperation requires training. Staff shortages in many healthcare systems worldwide, as well as recent pandemic restrictions, limit opportunities for collaborative team training. To address this challenge, a learner-centred approach known as flipped learning has been successfully implemented. This model comprises self-directed, asynchronous pre-course learning, followed by knowledge application and skill training during in-class sessions. The existing evidence supports the effectiveness of this approach for the acquisition of cognitive skills, but it is uncertain whether the flipped classroom model is suitable for the acquisition of team skills. The objective of this study was to determine if a flipped classroom approach, with an online workshop prior to an instructor-led course could improve team performance and key resuscitation variables during classroom training. Methods A single-centre, cluster-randomised, rater-blinded study was conducted on 114 final year medical students at a University Hospital in Germany. The study randomly assigned students to either the intervention or control group using a computer script. Each team, regardless of group, performed two advanced life support (ALS) scenarios on a simulator. The two groups differed in the order in which they completed the flipped e-learning curriculum. The intervention group started with the e-learning component, and the control group started with an ALS scenario. Simulators were used for recording and analysing resuscitation performance indicators, while professionals assessed team performance as a primary outcome. Results The analysis was conducted on the data of 96 participants in 21 teams, comprising of 11 intervention groups and 10 control groups. The intervention teams achieved higher team performance ratings during the first scenario compared to the control teams (Estimated marginal mean of global rating: 7.5 vs 5.6, p