Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2014
Training in transvaginal sonography using pelvic ultrasound simulators versus live models: a randomized controlled trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Moak James H, Larese Shannon R, Riordan John P, Sudhir Amita, Yan Guofen
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare pelvic ultrasound simulators (PSs) with live models (LMs) for training in transvaginal sonography (TVS).
METHOD: The authors conducted a prospective, randomized controlled trial of 145 eligible medical students trained in TVS in 2011-2012 with either a PS or an LM. A patient educator was used for LM training. Simulated intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy models were used for PS training. Students were tested using a standardized patient who evaluated their professionalism. A proctor, blinded to training type, scored their scanning technique. Digital images were saved for blinded review. Students rated their training using a Likert scale (0 = not very well; 10 = very well). The primary outcome measure was students' overall performance on a 40-point assessment tool for professionalism, scanning technique, and image acquisition. Poisson regression and Student t test were used for comparisons.
RESULTS: A total of 134 students participated (62 trained using a PS; 72 using an LM). Mean overall test scores were 56% for the PS group and 69% for the LM group (P = .001). A significant difference was identified in scanning technique (PS, 60% versus LM, 73%; P = .001) and image acquisition (PS, 37% versus LM, 59%; P = .001). None was observed for professionalism. The PS group rated their training experience at 4.4, whereas the LM group rated theirs at 6.2 (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Simulators do not perform as well as LMs for training novices in TVS, but they may be useful as an adjunct to LM training.
METHOD: The authors conducted a prospective, randomized controlled trial of 145 eligible medical students trained in TVS in 2011-2012 with either a PS or an LM. A patient educator was used for LM training. Simulated intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy models were used for PS training. Students were tested using a standardized patient who evaluated their professionalism. A proctor, blinded to training type, scored their scanning technique. Digital images were saved for blinded review. Students rated their training using a Likert scale (0 = not very well; 10 = very well). The primary outcome measure was students' overall performance on a 40-point assessment tool for professionalism, scanning technique, and image acquisition. Poisson regression and Student t test were used for comparisons.
RESULTS: A total of 134 students participated (62 trained using a PS; 72 using an LM). Mean overall test scores were 56% for the PS group and 69% for the LM group (P = .001). A significant difference was identified in scanning technique (PS, 60% versus LM, 73%; P = .001) and image acquisition (PS, 37% versus LM, 59%; P = .001). None was observed for professionalism. The PS group rated their training experience at 4.4, whereas the LM group rated theirs at 6.2 (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Simulators do not perform as well as LMs for training novices in TVS, but they may be useful as an adjunct to LM training.