Evaluating the baseline auscultation abilities of second-year chiropractic students using simulated patients and high-fidelity manikin simulators: A pilot study.

IF 0.7 Q4 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Sophia A da Silva-Oolup, Dominic Giuliano, Brynne Stainsby, Joshua Thomas, David Starmer
{"title":"Evaluating the baseline auscultation abilities of second-year chiropractic students using simulated patients and high-fidelity manikin simulators: A pilot study.","authors":"Sophia A da Silva-Oolup,&nbsp;Dominic Giuliano,&nbsp;Brynne Stainsby,&nbsp;Joshua Thomas,&nbsp;David Starmer","doi":"10.7899/JCE-21-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the ability of 2nd-year students to identify normal and abnormal findings during cardiac and lung auscultation using high-fidelity manikin simulators and standardized patients. A secondary objective was to assess students' perceived competence and confidence in their abilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a descriptive pilot study of randomly selected 2nd-year students at 1 chiropractic training program. Participants were asked to perform cardiac and lung auscultation on high-fidelity manikins (2 stations) and standardized human patients (2 stations) with normal and abnormal auscultation sounds. Participants described the auscultated sound as \"abnormal\" or \"normal\" and were also asked to score their confidence in describing the sound and competence in performing auscultation on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all study variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-two students (23 women and 9 men) were included. For lung auscultation, 15.6% were incorrect on the human subject and 6.2% were incorrect on the manikin. For cardiac auscultation, 62.5% were incorrect on the human subject and 40.6% were incorrect on the manikin. Confidence mean scores ranged from 34.8 to 60. Competence mean scores ranged from 34.8 to 50.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results identified that 2nd-year students from 1 institution were correct in identifying an abnormal sound during lung auscultation but reported low levels of perceived competence or confidence in their responses. They performed poorly on cardiac auscultation and reported low perceived confidence and competence in their abilities to perform cardiac auscultation and identify sounds.</p>","PeriodicalId":44516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9536226/pdf/i2374-250X-36-2-172.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-21-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: To assess the ability of 2nd-year students to identify normal and abnormal findings during cardiac and lung auscultation using high-fidelity manikin simulators and standardized patients. A secondary objective was to assess students' perceived competence and confidence in their abilities.

Methods: This was a descriptive pilot study of randomly selected 2nd-year students at 1 chiropractic training program. Participants were asked to perform cardiac and lung auscultation on high-fidelity manikins (2 stations) and standardized human patients (2 stations) with normal and abnormal auscultation sounds. Participants described the auscultated sound as "abnormal" or "normal" and were also asked to score their confidence in describing the sound and competence in performing auscultation on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all study variables.

Results: Thirty-two students (23 women and 9 men) were included. For lung auscultation, 15.6% were incorrect on the human subject and 6.2% were incorrect on the manikin. For cardiac auscultation, 62.5% were incorrect on the human subject and 40.6% were incorrect on the manikin. Confidence mean scores ranged from 34.8 to 60. Competence mean scores ranged from 34.8 to 50.

Conclusion: Results identified that 2nd-year students from 1 institution were correct in identifying an abnormal sound during lung auscultation but reported low levels of perceived competence or confidence in their responses. They performed poorly on cardiac auscultation and reported low perceived confidence and competence in their abilities to perform cardiac auscultation and identify sounds.

使用模拟病人和高保真假人模拟器评估脊椎指压学二年级学生的基线听诊能力:一项试点研究。
目的:利用高保真假人模拟器和标准化患者,评估二年级学生识别心肺听诊正常和异常表现的能力。第二个目标是评估学生的感知能力和对自己能力的信心。方法:这是一个描述性的试点研究,随机选择二年级学生在一个脊椎按摩训练计划。参与者分别在高保真人体模型(2台)和标准化人类患者(2台)上进行正常和异常听诊声音的心肺听诊。参与者将听诊声音描述为“异常”或“正常”,并被要求在100毫米的视觉模拟尺度上对他们描述声音的信心和听诊能力进行评分。对所有研究变量进行描述性统计。结果:共纳入32名学生,其中女23名,男9名。对于人体受试者的肺听诊,15.6%是不正确的,而对人体模型的听诊是6.2%。对于心脏听诊,62.5%在人体上是不正确的,40.6%在人体上是不正确的。信心平均得分在34.8到60之间。能力平均得分从34.8分到50分不等。结论:结果表明,来自一所院校的二年级学生在肺听诊中识别异常声音是正确的,但在他们的反应中报告了低水平的感知能力或信心。他们在心脏听诊中表现不佳,并且在进行心脏听诊和识别声音的能力方面表现出较低的自信和能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Chiropractic Education
Journal of Chiropractic Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
37.50%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The Journal of Chiropractic Education is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing research and scholarly articles pertaining to education theory, pedagogy, methodologies, practice, and other content relevant to the health professions academe. Journal contents are of interest to teachers, researchers, clinical educators, administrators, and students.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信