Revista espanola de patologia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Anatomia Patologica y de la Sociedad Espanola de Citologia · 2022
The utility of a gross dissection anatomical model for simulation-based learning in pathology.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Alcaraz-Mateos Eduardo, Mirza Kamran M, Molina-Valverde Sara, Togkaridou Marianthi, Caballero-Alemán Fuensanta, Poblet Enrique
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The examination of morphological alterations in tissues is fundamental in Pathology. Traditional training in gross dissection has several limitations, including the risk of transmissible diseases, formaldehyde exposure and limited specimen availability. We describe a teaching method using anatomical simulators.
METHODS: Liquid silicone-based artisan neoplastic anatomical models were used in conjunction with clinical scenarios. Eighty-five medical students participated in a gross dissection experience and were asked to complete a feedback questionnaire. Additionally, a workshop was organized for students to compare three different teaching methods. The first one used still images (Group1-G1), the second a video explanation (Group2-G2), and the third directly observed a pathologist while grossing (Group3-G3).
RESULTS: The knowledge acquisition questionnaire showed an average value of 4.4 out of 5 (1-5) (range 3.4-4.7, σ0.89). The categories 'knowledge of resection margins' and 'macroscopic diagnosis' received the highest values (4.8, σ0.11 and 4.7, σ0.32, respectively), followed by 'understanding of handling and gross examination of the surgical specimen' (4.5, σ0.49), 'prognosis' (4.3, σ0.67) and 'understanding of a tumor resection' (3.9, σ0.96) (p<0.05). Regarding teaching methods, G3 spent less time than G2 and G1 with mean times of 15'39″ (σ2'12″), 16'50″ (σ3'45″), and 17'52″ (σ2'12″), respectively (p<0.05). Gross dissection marks (0-5) showed statistically significant differences (p<0.05). G2 obtained better results (3.7;σ0.54) than G3 (3.4;σ0.94) or G1 (3.1;σ0.8).
CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study demonstrates that it is possible to implement a gross dissection simulation module at medical school and thus enable the acquisition of skills in a secure environment.
METHODS: Liquid silicone-based artisan neoplastic anatomical models were used in conjunction with clinical scenarios. Eighty-five medical students participated in a gross dissection experience and were asked to complete a feedback questionnaire. Additionally, a workshop was organized for students to compare three different teaching methods. The first one used still images (Group1-G1), the second a video explanation (Group2-G2), and the third directly observed a pathologist while grossing (Group3-G3).
RESULTS: The knowledge acquisition questionnaire showed an average value of 4.4 out of 5 (1-5) (range 3.4-4.7, σ0.89). The categories 'knowledge of resection margins' and 'macroscopic diagnosis' received the highest values (4.8, σ0.11 and 4.7, σ0.32, respectively), followed by 'understanding of handling and gross examination of the surgical specimen' (4.5, σ0.49), 'prognosis' (4.3, σ0.67) and 'understanding of a tumor resection' (3.9, σ0.96) (p<0.05). Regarding teaching methods, G3 spent less time than G2 and G1 with mean times of 15'39″ (σ2'12″), 16'50″ (σ3'45″), and 17'52″ (σ2'12″), respectively (p<0.05). Gross dissection marks (0-5) showed statistically significant differences (p<0.05). G2 obtained better results (3.7;σ0.54) than G3 (3.4;σ0.94) or G1 (3.1;σ0.8).
CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study demonstrates that it is possible to implement a gross dissection simulation module at medical school and thus enable the acquisition of skills in a secure environment.