SESSION TITLE: Critical Care 1 SESSION TYPE: Original Investigation Posters PRESENTED ON: 10/10/2018 01:00 PM - 02:00 PM PURPOSE: Traditionally, interns and medical students on a one-month rotation in our ICU have been given twelve 50-minute lectures on basic critical care topics. Because of increasing evidence of the effectiveness of active learning techniques, we sought to compare our traditional method of teaching to a new flipped classroom format using powerpoint video lectures available online and a subsequent in-class review of relevant cases. METHODS: Utilizing the online classroom Moodle, and Powerpoint presentations created using OfficeMix, we created 12 lectures, each in a flipped format and a traditional format. The flipped lectures were 20-minute Powerpoint presentations with audio voiceover that could be accessed online by learners. A 30-minute in-class session was then held where cases were discussed to apply the relevant teaching points and concepts. The traditional lectures were Powerpoint presentations delivered in the standard fashion with a lecturer presenting key concepts and evidence to learners. Each month, the 12 lectures were randomized to be delivered in either the flipped or traditional format. Learners took a pre-test at the beginning of their rotation and a post-test at the end. The results over a 6-month period were then compared to determine if the flipped method was non-inferior to the traditional method. RESULTS: Forty six interns and medical students rotating thru the University of New Mexico Medical ICU have participated to date. This group was comprised of 27 interns and 19 medical students. Thirty seven of these participants completed both pre- and post-tests. For the pre-test, participants answered 44.3% (s.d. 14.7) correctly on the “flipped” questions and 43.1% (s.d. 15.0) on the “traditional” questions. There was no significant difference (as expected) between the groups on the pre-test. For the post-test, the participants exposed to “Flipped” teaching content answered 61.0% (s.d. 19.3) of questions correctly, which was a significant improvement from the pre-test (P<0.001). Similarly, the when learners were exposed to “traditional” learning content, their performance on questions also increased, to 64% (s.d. 15.5). This increase was also statistically significant (p<0.001). While both teaching activities significantly improved their test performance, there was no significant difference in the amount of improvement between “flipped” vs “traditional” teaching. CONCLUSIONS: Flipped and traditional teaching methods appeared to be equally effective in improving participants knowledge with written tests. However, this will be re-analyzed once enrollment is complete in July. At that point, participant surveys, breakdown by content type and by adherence to the home lectures will be determined. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Using a flipped classroom methodology is as effective as traditional methods and allows for shorter in-class sessions and more flexibility in learners access to information. DISCLOSURES: No relevant relationships by Shozab Ahmed, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Michel Boivin, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Erik Kraai, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Tyler Shackelford, source=Web Response