Objectives As a pilot study, we aimed to investigate the knowledge and perceptions of categorical paediatric residents (RES) at our institution regarding insulin pumps (IPs) and the impact following a targeted workshop.
Methods All RES at our institution in attendance at a routine noon conference participated in a workshop, completing an anonymous survey before and right after the intervention to evaluate knowledge, attitudes and self-reported comfort regarding IPs. The workshop consisted of a didactic lecture followed by an insulin pump (IP) device demonstration of three commonly available brands. Knowledge score (KS) was calculated for each RES based on the total correct responses. Attitudes were assessed via 5-point Likert scale. Frequencies, t-test and McNemar tests were used to analyse data.
Results Thirty four completed surveys were analysed out of 49 RES (69.3%) who attended the workshop. Among them, there were 19 first-year, 8 second-year and 7 third-year residents. Following the intervention, KS increased significantly (p<0.001) with progression in residents’ attitudes. Overall, more RES reported being comfortable with handling the IP, including looking up and changing the settings (p<0.001).
Conclusion There is scope for improvement in the knowledge and perceptions of RES regarding IPs. Educational interventions like ours are needed to familiarise our future physicians with IPs to allow hospitals to provide their systematic and safe inpatient use.
- insulin pump
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors SB planned, conducted the study and wrote the manuscript. AM contributed to statistics and proofread the manuscript especially for Methods section. KK helped in conducting the workshop and collection of data. SP-C provided overall mentorship and guidance to the study, including reviewing the manuscript.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn NY, USA.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.