J Educ Eval Health Prof.  2016;13:16. 10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.16.

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

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, CA, USA. jpsilva@uci.edu
  • 2Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

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.

Keyword

Brazil; Internal medicine; Point-of-care systems; Simulation training; Ultrasonography

MeSH Terms

Brazil*
Education, Medical
Internal Medicine
Learning
Point-of-Care Systems
Simulation Training
Ultrasonography*

Figure

  • Fig. 1. Ultrasound images used as an answer key for the practical exam. (A) Right upper quadrant view. (B) Parasternal long axis view. (C) Parasternal short axis view. (D) Visceral-parietal pleural interface with M-mode. (E) Carotid/internal jugular vein with color Doppler.

  • Fig. 2. 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.


Reference

References

1. Sippel S, Muruganandan K, Levine A, Shah S. Review article: use of ultrasound in the developing world. Int J Emerg Med. 2011; 4:72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1865-1380-4-72.
Article
2. Fernandez-Frackelton M, Peterson M, Lewis RJ, Perez JE, Coates WC. A bedside ultrasound curriculum for medical students: prospective evaluation of skill acquisition. Teach Learn Med. 2007; 19:14–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10401330709336618.
Article
3. Hoppmann R, Cook T, Hunt P, Fowler S, Paulman L, Wells J, Richeson N, Thomas L, Wilson B, Neuffer F. Ultrasound in medical education: a vertical curriculum at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine. J S C Med Assoc. 2006; 102:330–334.
4. Akaike M, Fukutomi M, Nagamune M, Fujimoto A, Tsuji A, Ishida K, Iwata T. Simulation-based medical education in clinical skills laboratory. J Med Invest. 2012; 59:28–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.2152/jmi.59.28.
Article
5. SonoSim. The SonoSim Ultrasound Training Solution [Internet]. Santa Monica (CA): SonoSim Inc.;2012. [cited 2014 Sep 15]. Available from: http://sonosim.com/our-solution.
6. Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, Wang AT, Erwin PJ, Hamstra SJ. Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011; 306:978–988. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1234.
Article
7. Maddox RW, Schmid RJ. New frontiers in medical education: simulation technology at Campbell University School of Osteopathic Medicine. N C Med J. 2014; 75:59–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.18043/ncm.75.1.59.
8. Chung GK, Gyllenhammer RG, Baker EL, Savitsky E. Effects of simulation-based practice on focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) window identification, acquisition, and diagnosis. Mil Med. 2013; 178(10 Supple):87–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00208.
Article
9. Maul H, Scharf A, Baier P, Wustemann M, Günter HH, Gebauer G, Sohn C. Ultrasound simulators: experience with the SonoTrainer and comparative review of other training systems. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 24:581–585. http://dx.doi.org/0.1002/uog.1119.
Article
10. Sidhu HS, Olubaniyi BO, Bhatnagar G, Shuen V, Dubbins P. Role of simulation-based education in ultrasound practice training. J Ultrasound Med. 2012; 31:785–791.
Article
11. Fox JC, Chiem AT, Rooney KP, Maldonaldo G. Web-based lectures, peer instruction and ultrasound-integrated medical education. Med Educ. 2012; 46:1109–1110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.12039.
Article
Full Text Links
  • JEEHP
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr