Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia (Mar 2008)
Influência do subsídio financeiro e do local da realização do curso de suporte avançado de vida em cardiologia, no aprendizado da emergência cardiovascular Influence of financial subsidy and venue on advanced cardiac life support courses, in the learning of cardiovascular emergency
Abstract
FUNDAMENTO: O sucesso no aprendizado da emergência depende de muitos fatores que podem ser resumidos como: aluno, instrutores e curso. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a influência do subsídio financeiro e do local da realização do curso no aprendizado da emergência cardiovascular. MÉTODOS: Analisaram-se dados referentes aos cursos de Suporte Avançado de Vida em Cardiologia (ACLS) no período de dezembro de 2005 a dezembro de 2006. De acordo com o subsídio financeiro, foram divididos em: grupo 1 - subsídio integral; grupo 2 - subsídio de 50%; e grupo 3 - sem subsídio. Quanto ao local do curso, foram divididos em: local A - curso em cidade com > 1 milhão de habitantes; e local B - curso em cidade com BACKGROUND: The success in learning of emergency depends on many factors that can be summarized as: student, instructors and course. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of financial subsidy and venue of course in learning cardiovascular emergency. METHODS: Data were analyzed regarding the courses of Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) in the period from December 2005 to December 2006. In agreement with the financial subsidy, they were divided in: group 1 - integral subsidy; group 2 - subsidy of 50%; and group 3 - without subsidy. As for the venue of the course, they were divided in: locality A - study in city with> 1 million inhabitants; and locality B - study in city with <1 million inhabitants. The practical and theoretical approval and the theoretical average were compared. RESULTS: 819 students participated in ACLS: 199 (24%) in group 1, 122 (15%) in 2 and 498 (61%) in 3. The practical and theoretical approval and the average in the theoretical exam were greater in group 3 than in other groups (p <0.05). Four hundred and eighty two (482) took the course in venue A (59%) and 337 (41%) in venue B. The practical approval was similar for both groups (p = 0.33), however the theoretical approval was greater in venue A (73% vs. 65% - p = 0.021 - OR = 1.44 and IC: 1.05 - 1.97). The theoretical average was greater in venue A (87.1 ± 10.4 and 86 ± 11, respectively p <0.05). CONCLUSION: The financial subsidy and venue of the course had influence in the theoretical and practical approval.
Keywords
