Advertisement

Medical Science Educator

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 489–496 | Cite as

Enhancing Learning Experience Using Ultrasound Simulation in Undergraduate Medical Education: Student Perception

  • Tatyana KondrashovaEmail author
  • Crystal Coleman
Original Research

Abstract

Advances in programmable ultrasound training models may enhance the education of medical students through simulation of a variety of clinical presentations and pathologies. The purpose of the current study was to assess medical student perception of the impact of incorporating ultrasound training models in a required, second-year clinical ultrasound course. Students completed seven ultrasound assignments, demonstrating competency using eight pathology-simulating ultrasound training models. A 5-item survey was administered at the end of second year and included 4 items specific for each model and 1 item that was not model specific. The majority of students agreed or strongly agreed training models were easy to scan and learn, correlated well with what they learned, and aided clinical decision-making skills. Most students agreed or strongly agreed that they felt capable of performing ultrasound skills in a clinical setting under supervision, and almost all agreed or strongly agreed they were prepared to use ultrasound in a clinical setting. Student perception depended on training model (all P < .001). Differences were found between models for the easy to scan and learn item (all P < .02) and the capable of performing in a clinical setting under supervision item (all P < .02). Results suggested students felt prepared to use ultrasonography in a clinical setting after using ultrasound training models. Inclusion of medical ultrasound simulation in the medical school curriculum should be considered to provide students with realistic training before actual patient care.

Keywords

Ultrasound simulation Medical education Ultrasound training models Clinical skills 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The authors have no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest to report. The local institutional review board granted exempt status for the study. All authors provided substantial contributions to the conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; all authors drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content; all authors gave final approval of the version of the article to be published, and all authors agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

References

  1. 1.
    Fox JC, Schlang JR, Maldonado G, Lotfipour S, Clayman RV. Proactive medicine: the “UCI 30,” an ultrasound-based clinical initiative from the University of California, Irvine. Acad Med. 2014;89:984–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoppmann RA, Rao VV, Poston MB, et al. An integrated ultrasound curriculum (iUSC) for medical students: 4-year experience. Crit Ultrasound J. 2011;3:1–12. doi: 10.1007/s13089-011-0052-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rao S, van Holsbeeck L, Musial JL, Parker A, Bouffard JA, Bridge P, Jackson M, Dulchavsky SA. A pilot study of comprehensive ultrasound education at the Wayne State University School of Medicine: a pioneer year review. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:745–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoppmann R, Blaivas M, Elbarbary M. Better medical education and health care through point-of-care ultrasound. Acad Med. 2012;87:134. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31823f0e8f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Solomon SD, Saldana F. Point-of-care ultrasound in medical education: stop listening and look. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1083–5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1311944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Minardi J, Davidov D, Denne N, Haggerty T, Kiefer C, Tillotson R, Whiteman C, Williams D, Williams D. Bedside ultrasound: advanced technology to improve rural healthcare. W V Med J. 2013;109:28–34.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moore CL, Copel JA. Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:749–57. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra0909487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2277–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dinh VA, Frederick J, Bartos R, Shankel TM, Werner L. Effects of ultrasound implementation on physical examination learning and teaching during the first year of medical education. J Ultrasound Med. 2015;34:43–50. doi: 10.7863/ultra.34.1.43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Okuda Y, Bryson EO, DeMaria S Jr, Jacobson L, Quinones J, Shen B, Levine AI. The utility of simulation in medical education: what is the evidence? Mt Sinai J Med. 2009;76:330–43. doi: 10.1002/msj.20127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewiss RE, Hoffmann B, Beaulieu Y, Phelan MB. Point-of-care ultrasound education: the increasing role of simulation and multimedia resources. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33:27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Daftari AP, Jaffer J, Homer SH, Schaefer MP. Bovine shoulder and hip models to teach ultrasound-guided injections. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;90:746–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baltarowich OH, Di Salvo DN, Scoutt LM, et al. National ultrasound curriculum for medical students. Ultrasound Q. 2014;30:13–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kneebone R. Simulation in surgical training: educational issues and practical implications. Med Educ. 2003;37:267–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yoo MC, Villegas L, Jones DB. Basic ultrasound curriculum for medical students: validation of content and phantom. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2004;14:374–9. doi: 10.1089/lap.2004.14.374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maul H, Scharf A, Baier P, Wüstemann M, Günter H, Gebauer G, Sohn C. Ultrasound simulators: experience with the SonoTrainer and comparative review of other training systems. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24:581–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller GT, Scerbo MW, Zybak S, et al. Learner improvement from a simulation-enhanced ultrasonography curriculum for first-year medical students. J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36:609–19. doi: 10.7863/ultra.15.12025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen MER, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB. Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med. 2011;86:706–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003–2009. Med Educ. 2010;44:50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berkenstadt H, Erez D, Munz Y, Simon D, Ziv A. Training and assessment of trauma management: the role of simulation-based medical education. Anesthesiol Clin. 2007;25:65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wayne DB, Barsuk JH, O'Leary KJ, Fudala MJ, McGaghie WC. Mastery learning of thoracentesis skills by internal medicine residents using simulation technology and deliberate practice. J Hosp Med. 2008;3:48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Silva JP, Plescia T, Molina N, Tonelli AC, Langdorf M, Fox JC. Randomized study of effectiveness of computerized ultrasound simulators for an introductory course for residents in Brazil. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2016;13:16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mendiratta-Lala M, Williams T, de Quadros N, Bonnett J, Mendiratta V. The use of a simulation center to improve resident proficiency in performing ultrasound-guided procedures. Acad Radiol. 2010;17:535–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parks AR, Atkinson P, Verheul G, LeBlanc-Duchin D. Can medical learners achieve point-of-care ultrasound competency using a high-fidelity ultrasound simulator? A pilot study. Crit Ultrasound J. 2013;5:9. doi: 10.1186/2036-7902-5-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Akaike M, Fukutomi M, Nagamune M, Fujimoto A, Tsuji A, Ishida K, Iwata T. Simulation-based medical education in clinical skills laboratory. J Med Investig. 2012;59:28–35. doi: 10.2152/jmi.59.28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sullivan G, Simpson D, Cooney T, Beresin E. A milestone in the milestones movement: the JGME milestones supplement. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dinh VA, Lakoff D, Hess J, Bahner DP, Hoppmann R, Blaivas M, Pellerito JS, Abuhamad A, Khandelwal S. Medical student core clinical ultrasound milestones: a consensus among directors in the United States. J Ultrasound Med. 2016;35:421–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee K, Kim SY, Choi SM, Kim JS, Lee B, Seo K, Lee Y, Kim D. Effectiveness of prenatal ultrasonography in detecting fetal anomalies and perinatal outcome of anomalous fetuses. Yonsei Med J. 1998;39:372–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Madjar H. Role of breast ultrasound for the detection and differentiation of breast lesions. Breast Care (Basel). 2010;5:109–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jackson VP. The current role of ultrasonography in breast imaging. Radiol Clin N Am. 1995;33:1161–70.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Huang GC, Smith CC, Gordon CE, Feller-Kopman DJ, Davis RB, Phillips RS, Weingart SN (2006) Beyond the comfort zone: residents assess their comfort performing inpatient medical procedures. Am J Med 119:71.e17-24.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    ACS Committee on Perioperative Care (2011) Revised statement on recommendations for use of real-time ultrasound guidance for placement of central venous catheters. Bull Am Coll Surg 96:36–37.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sznajder JI, Zveibil FR, Bitterman H, Weiner P, Bursztein S. Central vein catheterization: failure and complication rates by three percutaneous approaches. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146:259–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McGee DC, Gould MK. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1123–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Turker G, Kaya FN, Gurbet A, Aksu H, Erdogan C, Atlas A. Internal jugular vein cannulation: an ultrasound-guided technique versus a landmark-guided technique. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2009;64:989–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mallory DL, McGee WT, Shawker TH, Brenner M, Bailey KR, Evans RG, Parker MM, Farmer JC, Parillo JE. Ultrasound guidance improves the success rate of internal jugular vein cannulation: a prospective, randomized trial. Chest. 1990;98:157–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Magee D, Zhu Y, Ratnalingam R, Gardner P, Kessel D. An augmented reality simulator for ultrasound guided needle placement training. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2007;45:957–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Feller-Kopman D. Ultrasound-guided internal jugular access: a proposed standardized approach and implications for training and practice. Chest. 2007;132:302–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Committee on Emerging Surgical Technology and Education (2011) Ultrasound examinations by surgeons. http://wwwfacsorg/fellows_info/statements/st-31html Accessed 10 June 2016.
  40. 40.
    Beeson M, Christopher T, Heidt J, et al. The emergency medicine milestone project. http://wwwacgmeorg/Portals/0/PDFs/Milestones/EmergencyMedicineMilestonespdf?ver=2015-11-06-120531-877 Accessed. 2015;(10 June 2016)
  41. 41.
    Newble D, Entwistle N. Learning styles and approaches: implications for medical education. Med Educ. 1986;20:162–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Family Medicine, Preventive Medicine, and Community Health, Kirksville College of Osteopathic MedicineA.T. Still UniversityKirksvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Academic Affairs, Kirksville College of Osteopathic MedicineA.T. Still UniversityKirksvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations