Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Basic echocardiography for undergraduate students: a comparison of different peer-teaching approaches

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of different teaching interventions in a peer-teaching environment on basic echocardiography skills and to examine the influence of gender on learning outcomes.

Methods

We randomly assigned 79 s year medical students (55 women, 24 men) to one of four groups: peer teaching (PT), peer teaching using Peyton’s four-step approach (PPT), team based learning (TBL) and video-based learning (VBL). All groups received theoretical and practical hands-on training according to the different approaches. Using a pre–post-design we assessed differences in theoretical knowledge [multiple choice (MC) exam], practical skills (Objective Structured Practical Examination, OSPE) and evaluation results with respect to gender.

Results

There was a significant gain in theoretical knowledge for all students. There were no relevant differences between the four groups regarding the MC exam and OSPE results. The majority of students achieved good or very good results. Acceptance of the peer-teaching concept was moderate and all students preferred medical experts to peer tutors even though the overall rating of the instructors was fairly good. Students in the Video group would have preferred a different training method. There was no significant effect of gender on evaluation results.

Conclusions

Using different peer-teaching concepts proved to be effective in teaching basic echocardiography. Gender does not seem to have an impact on effectiveness of the instructional approach. Qualitative analysis revealed limited acceptance of peer teaching and especially of video-based instruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moore CL, Copel JA. Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(8):749–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Laursen CB, Sloth E, Lambrechtsen J, Lassen AT, Madsen PH, Henriksen DP, Davidsen JR, Rasmussen F. Focused sonography of the heart, lungs, and deep veins identifies missed life-threatening conditions in admitted patients with acute respiratory symptoms. Chest. 2013;144(6):1868–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Spencer KT, Kimura BJ, Korcarz CE, Pellikka PA, Rahko PS, Siegel RJ. Focused cardiac ultrasound: recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26(6):567–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Breitkreutz R, Walcher F, Seeger FH. Focused echocardiographic evaluation in resuscitation management: concept of an advanced life support-conformed algorithm. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:150–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuhl M, Wagner R, Bauder M, Fenik Y, Riessen R, Lammerding-Koppel M, Gawaz M, Fateh-Moghadam S, Weyrich P, Celebi N. Student tutors for hands-on training in focused emergency echocardiography—a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:101–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Nielsen DG, Gotzsche O, Eika B. Objective structured assessment of technical competence in transthoracic echocardiography: a validity study in a standardised setting. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Knobe M, Carow JB, Ruesseler M, Leu BM, Simon M, Beckers SK, Ghassemi A, Sönmez TT, Pape H-C. Arthroscopy or ultrasound in undergraduate anatomy education: a randomized cross-over controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12(1):85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Knobe M, Munker R, Sellei RM, Holschen M, Mooij SC, Schmidt-Rohlfing B, Niethard FU, Pape HC. Peer teaching: a randomised controlled trial using student-teachers to teach musculoskeletal ultrasound. Med Educ. 2010;44(2):148–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gradl-Dietsch G, Korden T, Modabber A, Sonmez TT, Stromps JP, Ganse B, Pape HC, Knobe M. Multidimensional approach to teaching anatomy—do gender and learning style matter? Ann Anat. 2016;208:158–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ross MT, Cameron HS. Peer assisted learning: a planning and implementation framework: AMEE Guide no. 30. Med Teach. 2007;29(6):527–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Krautter M, Weyrich P, Schultz JH, Buss SJ, Maatouk I, Junger J, Nikendei C. Effects of Peyton’s four-step approach on objective performance measures in technical skills training: a controlled trial. Teach Learn Med. 2011;23(3):244–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Herrmann-Werner A, Nikendei C, Keifenheim K, Bosse HM, Lund F, Wagner R, Celebi N, Zipfel S, Weyrich P. “Best practice” skills lab training vs. a “see one, do one” approach in undergraduate medical education: an RCT on students’ long-term ability to perform procedural clinical skills. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e76354.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Peyton JWR. Teaching in the theatre. In: Peyton JWR, editors. Teaching and learning in medical practice. Rickmansworth, UK: Manticore Europe Limited; 1998. p. 171–80.

  14. Parmelee D, Michaelsen LK, Cook S, Hudes PD. Team-based learning: a practical guide: AMEE guide no. 65. Med Teach. 2012;34(5):e275–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ellaway R, Masters K. AMEE Guide 32: e-Learning in medical education Part 1: learning, teaching and assessment. Med Teach. 2008;30(5):455–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Weber U, Constantinescu MA, Woermann U, Schmitz F, Schnabel K. Video-based instructions for surgical hand disinfection as a replacement for conventional tuition? A randomised, blind comparative study. GMS J Med Educ. 2016;33(4):Doc57.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Guillot A, Champely S, Batier C, Thiriet P, Collet C. Relationship between spatial abilities, mental rotation and functional anatomy learning. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2007;12(4):491–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Garg AX, Norman G, Sperotable L. How medical students learn spatial anatomy. The Lancet. 2001;357(9253):363–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Thorson CM, Kelly JP, Forse RA, Turaga KK. Can we continue to ignore gender differences in performance on simulation trainers? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2011;21(4):329–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mooij SC, Antony P, Ruesseler M, Pfeifer R, Drescher W, Simon M, Pape HC, Knobe M. Gender-specific evaluation of student’s career planning during medical study in terms of orthopaedic trauma. Z Orthop Unfall. 2011;149(4):389–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Roshier AL, Foster N, Jones MA. Veterinary students’ usage and perception of video teaching resources. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11:1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Harden RM, Cairncross RG. Assessment of practical skills: the Objective Structured Practical Examination (OSPE). Studies High Educ. 1980;5:187–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Khan KZ, Ramachandran S, Gaunt K, Pushkar P. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE): AMEE Guide No. 81. Part I: an historical and theoretical perspective. Med Teach. 2013;35(9):1437–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Burgos CM, Josephson A. Gender differences in the learning and teaching of surgery: a literature review. Int J Med Educ. 2014;5:110–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Haq I, Higham J, Morris R, Dacre J. Effect of ethnicity and gender on performance in undergraduate medical examinations. Med Educ. 2005;39(11):1126–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Smits PB, Verbeek JH, Nauta MC, Ten Cate TJ, Metz JC, van Dijk FJ. Factors predictive of successful learning in postgraduate medical education. Med Educ. 2004;38(7):758–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McDonough CM, Horgan A, Codd MB, Casey PR. Gender differences in the results of the final medical examination at University College Dublin. Med Educ. 2000;34(1):30–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Szczepanik A, Spieszny M, Klocek T, Szczepanik M, Goroszeniuk D, Kubisz A, Kulig J. Motor coordination assessment in practicing surgeons and medical students. Acta Chir Belg. 2009;110(3):317–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Celebi N, Zwirner K, Lischner U, Bauder M, Ditthard K, Schurger S, Riessen R, Engel C, Balletshofer B, Weyrich P. Student tutors are able to teach basic sonographic anatomy effectively—a prospective randomized controlled trial. Ultraschall Med. 2012;33(2):141–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Knobe M, Holschen M, Mooij S, Sellei R, Munker R, Antony P, Pfeifer R, Drescher W, Pape H. Knowledge transfer of spinal manipulation skills by student–teachers: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(5):992–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Gormley GJ, Collins K, Boohan M, Bickle IC, Stevenson M. Is there a place for e-learning in clinical skills? A survey of undergraduate medical students’ experiences and attitudes. Med Teach. 2009;31(1):e6–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Heiberg J, Hansen LS, Wemmelund K, Sorensen AH, Ilkjaer C, Cloete E, Nolte D, Roodt F, Dyer R, Swanevelder J, et al. Point-of-care clinical ultrasound for medical students. Ultrasound Int Open. 2015;1(2):E58–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all the students who participated, because without their enthusiasm and willingness this project would not have been possible.

Author information

Author notes

  1. G. Gradl-Dietsch and A. K. Menon contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Trauma, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, 30 Pauwelsstreet, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    G. Gradl-Dietsch & M. Knobe

  2. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, LVR Clinic, University of Essen, 21 Wickenburgstreet, 45147, Essen, Germany

    G. Gradl-Dietsch

  3. Department Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, 30 Pauwelsstreet, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    A. K. Menon, A. Gürsel, A. Götzenich, N. Hatam & A. Aljalloud

  4. Department of Radiology, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, 30 Pauwelsstreet, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    S. Schrading

  5. Department of Interdisciplinary Emergency Medical Care, Medical Center Marienhöhe, 25 Mauerfeldchen, 52146, Würselen, Germany

    F. Hölzl

Authors
  1. G. Gradl-Dietsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. K. Menon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Gürsel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Götzenich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. Hatam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Aljalloud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. S. Schrading
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. F. Hölzl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. M. Knobe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GGD, AKM and MK had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors meet all three of the requirements for authorship. AKM, AYG, AG, NH, AA, FH and SS were highly involved in the planning and execution of this study. AYG organized the project in order to complete her medical thesis. Furthermore GGD, AKM, AG, NH, and AA were highly involved in the acquisition of data and in the process of data interpretation. FH and SS made a significant contribution to the analysis and interpretation of data. Furthermore they took part in the manuscript review process and revised it critically. In this way they provided an important intellectual content in line with study execution. MK acted as the initiator of the study and was highly involved in the advancement of the conception.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Knobe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Gertraud Gradl-Dietsch, Ares Krishna Menon, Aylin Gürsel, Andreas Götzenich, Nima Hatam, Ali Aljalloud, Simone Schrading, Friedrich Hölzl, and Matthias Knobe declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

Study involves human participants. Institutional Review Board approval was granted before initiation of this study, and strict confidentiality guidelines were followed (Local Ethics Committee Reference Number EK 178/09).

Informed consent

Participants provided informed consent for the use of their results in this study and for publication at the time of enrollment.

Funding

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gradl-Dietsch, G., Menon, A.K., Gürsel, A. et al. Basic echocardiography for undergraduate students: a comparison of different peer-teaching approaches. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 44, 143–152 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-017-0819-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-017-0819-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation