BMC medical education · 2024
Comparison of In-person VS remote learning modalities for ultrasound-guided knee arthrocentesis training using formalin-embalmed cadavers.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Thomson Andrew, Larson Grant, Moeller John, Soucy Zachary, Zapata Isain, Mason Nena Lundgreen
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the efficacy of remote versus in-person training strategies to teach ultrasound guided knee arthrocentesis using formalin embalmed cadavers.
METHODS: 30 first-year medical student participants were randomly assigned to remote or in-person training groups. Pre- and post- training surveys were used to evaluate participant's self-confidence in their ability to perform the procedure. Participants were asked to watch a 30-minute training video and then attend a skills training workshop. The workshops consisted of 20 min of hands-on instruction followed by a skills assessment.
RESULTS: Following training, participant self-confidence increased significantly across all survey items in both groups (p = 0.0001). No significant changes in participant self-confidence were detected between the groups. Skills and knowledge-related metrics did not differ significantly between the groups with the exception of the "knowledge of instruments" variable.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests that remote ultrasound-guided procedure training, although logistically complex, is a viable alternative to traditional in-person learning techniques even for a notoriously hands on skill like ultrasound guided knee arthrocentesis. Novice first-year medical student operators in the remote-training group were able to significantly increase their confidence and demonstrate competency in a manner statistically indistinguishable from those trained in-person. These results support the pedagogical validity of using remote training to teach ultrasound guided procedures which could have implications in rural and global health initiatives where educational resources are more limited.
METHODS: 30 first-year medical student participants were randomly assigned to remote or in-person training groups. Pre- and post- training surveys were used to evaluate participant's self-confidence in their ability to perform the procedure. Participants were asked to watch a 30-minute training video and then attend a skills training workshop. The workshops consisted of 20 min of hands-on instruction followed by a skills assessment.
RESULTS: Following training, participant self-confidence increased significantly across all survey items in both groups (p = 0.0001). No significant changes in participant self-confidence were detected between the groups. Skills and knowledge-related metrics did not differ significantly between the groups with the exception of the "knowledge of instruments" variable.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests that remote ultrasound-guided procedure training, although logistically complex, is a viable alternative to traditional in-person learning techniques even for a notoriously hands on skill like ultrasound guided knee arthrocentesis. Novice first-year medical student operators in the remote-training group were able to significantly increase their confidence and demonstrate competency in a manner statistically indistinguishable from those trained in-person. These results support the pedagogical validity of using remote training to teach ultrasound guided procedures which could have implications in rural and global health initiatives where educational resources are more limited.