一项随机对照试验:使用护理点超声评估急诊科志愿者患者与人体模拟器提高医学亚实习学生对低血压和休克的知识和信心

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Advances in Medical Education and Practice Pub Date : 2025-06-25 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S518639
Badar Patel, Valerie A Dobiesz, Andrew J Goldsmith, Mary W Montgomery, Nora Y Osman, Stephen R Pelletier, Michael S Miller, Helen M Shields
{"title":"一项随机对照试验:使用护理点超声评估急诊科志愿者患者与人体模拟器提高医学亚实习学生对低血压和休克的知识和信心","authors":"Badar Patel, Valerie A Dobiesz, Andrew J Goldsmith, Mary W Montgomery, Nora Y Osman, Stephen R Pelletier, Michael S Miller, Helen M Shields","doi":"10.2147/AMEP.S518639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) excels in the assessment of patients with hypotension and shock. Whether using real patients or a manikin simulator to teach POCUS skills is preferable is not completely clear. We designed a randomized-controlled trial to compare these two different teaching methods of POCUS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 47 medical students on an internal medicine sub-internship in this randomized-controlled trial. Twenty-four students were randomly assigned to the experimental group to learn from volunteer patients in the emergency department (ED), and 23 were randomly assigned to the control group to learn from a manikin simulator in a simulation center. All students received a didactic workshop focused on hypotension and shock, followed by supervised learning from either volunteer patients in the ED or a manikin simulator in a simulation center. Student knowledge and confidence were assessed through a pre-survey before the workshop, post-survey after the workshop, and a 3-month longitudinal survey after both the workshop and supervised POCUS learning were completed. The primary end point was assessment of student knowledge and confidence at the 3-month longitudinal time period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At the 3-month longitudinal survey, there was no statistical difference in the primary end point of questions correctly answered by students in the experimental group compared to those in the control group (88% vs 86.5%, p = 0.713, NS), and no statistical difference in reported confidence between students in the experimental group from those in the control group (4.22 vs 4.10, p = 0.846, NS).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this randomized-controlled trial using POCUS to assess hypotension and shock, there were no significant differences in learner knowledge and confidence between students in the ED experimental group learning from volunteer patients versus the control group learning from a manikin simulator indicating that the methods may be equally effective in teaching POCUS.</p>","PeriodicalId":47404,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","volume":"16 ","pages":"1047-1053"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12206405/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Randomized-Controlled Trial Using Point of Care Ultrasound to Evaluate Volunteer Patients in the Emergency Department Versus a Manikin Simulator for Improving Knowledge and Confidence of Hypotension and Shock in Medicine Sub-Internship Students.\",\"authors\":\"Badar Patel, Valerie A Dobiesz, Andrew J Goldsmith, Mary W Montgomery, Nora Y Osman, Stephen R Pelletier, Michael S Miller, Helen M Shields\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/AMEP.S518639\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) excels in the assessment of patients with hypotension and shock. Whether using real patients or a manikin simulator to teach POCUS skills is preferable is not completely clear. We designed a randomized-controlled trial to compare these two different teaching methods of POCUS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 47 medical students on an internal medicine sub-internship in this randomized-controlled trial. Twenty-four students were randomly assigned to the experimental group to learn from volunteer patients in the emergency department (ED), and 23 were randomly assigned to the control group to learn from a manikin simulator in a simulation center. All students received a didactic workshop focused on hypotension and shock, followed by supervised learning from either volunteer patients in the ED or a manikin simulator in a simulation center. Student knowledge and confidence were assessed through a pre-survey before the workshop, post-survey after the workshop, and a 3-month longitudinal survey after both the workshop and supervised POCUS learning were completed. The primary end point was assessment of student knowledge and confidence at the 3-month longitudinal time period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At the 3-month longitudinal survey, there was no statistical difference in the primary end point of questions correctly answered by students in the experimental group compared to those in the control group (88% vs 86.5%, p = 0.713, NS), and no statistical difference in reported confidence between students in the experimental group from those in the control group (4.22 vs 4.10, p = 0.846, NS).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this randomized-controlled trial using POCUS to assess hypotension and shock, there were no significant differences in learner knowledge and confidence between students in the ED experimental group learning from volunteer patients versus the control group learning from a manikin simulator indicating that the methods may be equally effective in teaching POCUS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47404,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Medical Education and Practice\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"1047-1053\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12206405/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Medical Education and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S518639\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S518639","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:护理点超声(POCUS)在低血压和休克患者的评估中具有优势。究竟是使用真实患者还是使用人体模拟器来教授POCUS技能,目前还不完全清楚。我们设计了一项随机对照试验来比较两种不同的POCUS教学方法。方法:我们招募了47名医科学生在这个随机对照试验的内科实习。24名学生被随机分配到实验组,向急诊科(ED)的志愿者患者学习,23名学生被随机分配到对照组,向仿真中心的人体模拟器学习。所有学生都接受了以低血压和休克为重点的教学研讨会,随后由急诊科的志愿者或模拟中心的人体模拟器进行监督学习。通过工作坊前的预调查、工作坊后的后调查以及工作坊和监督POCUS学习完成后3个月的纵向调查来评估学生的知识和信心。主要终点是在3个月的纵向时间内评估学生的知识和信心。结果:在为期3个月的纵向调查中,实验组学生答对问题的主要终点与对照组相比无统计学差异(88% vs 86.5%, p = 0.713, NS),实验组学生与对照组学生报告的置信度无统计学差异(4.22 vs 4.10, p = 0.846, NS)。结论:在这项使用POCUS评估低血压和休克的随机对照试验中,学习志愿者患者的ED实验组学生与学习人体模拟器的对照组学生在学习者知识和信心方面没有显著差异,这表明这两种方法在教授POCUS方面可能同样有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Randomized-Controlled Trial Using Point of Care Ultrasound to Evaluate Volunteer Patients in the Emergency Department Versus a Manikin Simulator for Improving Knowledge and Confidence of Hypotension and Shock in Medicine Sub-Internship Students.

Aim: Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) excels in the assessment of patients with hypotension and shock. Whether using real patients or a manikin simulator to teach POCUS skills is preferable is not completely clear. We designed a randomized-controlled trial to compare these two different teaching methods of POCUS.

Methods: We enrolled 47 medical students on an internal medicine sub-internship in this randomized-controlled trial. Twenty-four students were randomly assigned to the experimental group to learn from volunteer patients in the emergency department (ED), and 23 were randomly assigned to the control group to learn from a manikin simulator in a simulation center. All students received a didactic workshop focused on hypotension and shock, followed by supervised learning from either volunteer patients in the ED or a manikin simulator in a simulation center. Student knowledge and confidence were assessed through a pre-survey before the workshop, post-survey after the workshop, and a 3-month longitudinal survey after both the workshop and supervised POCUS learning were completed. The primary end point was assessment of student knowledge and confidence at the 3-month longitudinal time period.

Results: At the 3-month longitudinal survey, there was no statistical difference in the primary end point of questions correctly answered by students in the experimental group compared to those in the control group (88% vs 86.5%, p = 0.713, NS), and no statistical difference in reported confidence between students in the experimental group from those in the control group (4.22 vs 4.10, p = 0.846, NS).

Conclusion: In this randomized-controlled trial using POCUS to assess hypotension and shock, there were no significant differences in learner knowledge and confidence between students in the ED experimental group learning from volunteer patients versus the control group learning from a manikin simulator indicating that the methods may be equally effective in teaching POCUS.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in Medical Education and Practice
Advances in Medical Education and Practice EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
189
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信