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

• Silva JP
• Plescia T
• Molina N
• Tonelli AC
• Langdorf M
• Fox JC

• KMID: 2413765
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.16

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.