Limits...
Randomized study of effectiveness of computerized ultrasound simulators for an introductory course for residents in Brazil.

Silva JP, Plescia T, Molina N, Tonelli AC, Langdorf M, Fox JC - J Educ Eval Health Prof (2016)

Bottom Line: Both participated in lecture and hands-on training, but experimental group received an hour of computerized simulator training instead of a second hour of hands-on training.For the 30-item written exam, mean score of the experimental group was 23.1±3.4 (n=21) vs. 21.8±4.8 (n=19), (P>0 .05).For the practical exam, mean score for both groups was 8.7 out of 16 (P>0 .05).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, CA, USA.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the impact of ultrasound simulation (SonoSim) on educational outcomes of an introductory point-of-care ultrasound course compared to hands-on training with live models alone.

Methods: Fifty-three internal medicine residents without ultrasound experience were randomly assigned to control or experimental groups. They participated in an introductory point-of-care ultrasound course covering eight topics in eight sessions from June 23, 2014 until July 18, 2014. Both participated in lecture and hands-on training, but experimental group received an hour of computerized simulator training instead of a second hour of hands-on training. We assessed clinical knowledge and image acquisition with written multiple-choice and practical exams, respectively. Of the 53 enrolled, 40 participants (75.5%) completed the course and all testing.

Results: For the 30-item written exam, mean score of the experimental group was 23.1±3.4 (n=21) vs. 21.8±4.8 (n=19), (P>0 .05). For the practical exam, mean score for both groups was 8.7 out of 16 (P>0 .05).

Conclusion: The substitution of eight hours of ultrasound simulation training for live model scanning in a 24 hour training course did not enhance performance on written and image acquisition tests in an introductory ultrasound course for residents. This result suggests that ultrasound simulation technology used as a substitute for live model training on an hour-for-hour basis, did not improve learning outcomes. Further investigation into simulation as a total replacement for live model training will provide a clearer picture of the efficacy of ultrasound simulators in medical education.

No MeSH data available.


Comparison of mean scores of the live model (LM) and live model plus simulator (LM+S) groups for the (A) written and (B) practical examinations. Vertical bars represent standard deviation.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4835743&req=5

f2-jeehp-13-16: Comparison of mean scores of the live model (LM) and live model plus simulator (LM+S) groups for the (A) written and (B) practical examinations. Vertical bars represent standard deviation.

Mentions: Of the 53 students who participated in the course, 40 (75.5%) met the attendance requirements for all eight sessions and completed the 30-item MCQ written exam. The mean score of the LM+S group was 23.1±3.4 (n=21) vs. 21.8±4.8 (n=19) in the LM group (Fig. 2). There was no significant difference between the written exam scores of the two groups (P>0.05). Of 53 students who participated in the course, 41 (77.4%) met the attendance requirements for all eight sessions and completed the 16-item practical exam. The mean score for the LM+ S group was 8.7±4.8 (n=22) while the mean score for the LM group was also 8.7±3.9 (n=19) (P>0.05) (Fig. 2). Raw data of the results were available from Supplementary file 2.


Randomized study of effectiveness of computerized ultrasound simulators for an introductory course for residents in Brazil.

Silva JP, Plescia T, Molina N, Tonelli AC, Langdorf M, Fox JC - J Educ Eval Health Prof (2016)

Comparison of mean scores of the live model (LM) and live model plus simulator (LM+S) groups for the (A) written and (B) practical examinations. Vertical bars represent standard deviation.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4835743&req=5

f2-jeehp-13-16: Comparison of mean scores of the live model (LM) and live model plus simulator (LM+S) groups for the (A) written and (B) practical examinations. Vertical bars represent standard deviation.
Mentions: Of the 53 students who participated in the course, 40 (75.5%) met the attendance requirements for all eight sessions and completed the 30-item MCQ written exam. The mean score of the LM+S group was 23.1±3.4 (n=21) vs. 21.8±4.8 (n=19) in the LM group (Fig. 2). There was no significant difference between the written exam scores of the two groups (P>0.05). Of 53 students who participated in the course, 41 (77.4%) met the attendance requirements for all eight sessions and completed the 16-item practical exam. The mean score for the LM+ S group was 8.7±4.8 (n=22) while the mean score for the LM group was also 8.7±3.9 (n=19) (P>0.05) (Fig. 2). Raw data of the results were available from Supplementary file 2.

Bottom Line: Both participated in lecture and hands-on training, but experimental group received an hour of computerized simulator training instead of a second hour of hands-on training.For the 30-item written exam, mean score of the experimental group was 23.1±3.4 (n=21) vs. 21.8±4.8 (n=19), (P>0 .05).For the practical exam, mean score for both groups was 8.7 out of 16 (P>0 .05).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, CA, USA.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the impact of ultrasound simulation (SonoSim) on educational outcomes of an introductory point-of-care ultrasound course compared to hands-on training with live models alone.

Methods: Fifty-three internal medicine residents without ultrasound experience were randomly assigned to control or experimental groups. They participated in an introductory point-of-care ultrasound course covering eight topics in eight sessions from June 23, 2014 until July 18, 2014. Both participated in lecture and hands-on training, but experimental group received an hour of computerized simulator training instead of a second hour of hands-on training. We assessed clinical knowledge and image acquisition with written multiple-choice and practical exams, respectively. Of the 53 enrolled, 40 participants (75.5%) completed the course and all testing.

Results: For the 30-item written exam, mean score of the experimental group was 23.1±3.4 (n=21) vs. 21.8±4.8 (n=19), (P>0 .05). For the practical exam, mean score for both groups was 8.7 out of 16 (P>0 .05).

Conclusion: The substitution of eight hours of ultrasound simulation training for live model scanning in a 24 hour training course did not enhance performance on written and image acquisition tests in an introductory ultrasound course for residents. This result suggests that ultrasound simulation technology used as a substitute for live model training on an hour-for-hour basis, did not improve learning outcomes. Further investigation into simulation as a total replacement for live model training will provide a clearer picture of the efficacy of ultrasound simulators in medical education.

No MeSH data available.