Search

Introduction: There is no international consensus on the orientation of transvaginal ultrasound images and no evidence exists to support the superiority of one image orientation over the other. The aim of this study was to compare learning curves and skills transfer in a group of novices randomized to top-down or bottom-up image orientation, and to determine whether individual preferences for image orientation affect learning and skills transfer., Material and Methods: 60 senior medical students, with no prior ultrasound experience, were randomized to orient the image top-down or bottom-up during training on an ultrasound simulator until attaining expert levels of performance. Participants then completed a transfer test involving a systematic ultrasound examination on a physical mannequin using real ultrasound equipment. Performance was assessed during the transfer test by two independent raters using the objective structured assessment of ultrasound skills (OSAUS) score and a global rating score., Results: The bottom-up group reached the expert level with significantly fewer attempts than did the top-down group [median ± interquartile range: 4 ± 2 vs 5 ± 3] (U = 285.5, P = 0.014). The bottom-up group used less time to achieve the expert level (median ± interquartile range: 3 h 2 m ± 1 h 14 m vs 3 h 28 m ± 2 h 21 m) (U = 301.5, P = 0.029). The two groups performed similarly during the transfer test with respect to their OSAUS scores (top-down 56.7% vs bottom-up 53.2%, P = 0.13). The global rating scores were higher in the top-down group (top-down 57.1% vs bottom-up 50.0%, P = 0.02)., Conclusions: Orientation of the images bottom-up rather than top-down, led to a steeper learning curve, but had little or no impact on the subsequent transfer of skills., (© 2018 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

Objective: To explore the effect of adding simulation-based transvaginal ultrasound training to trainees' clinical training compared with only clinical training on quality of and efficiency of care., Background: Simulation-based ultrasound training may be an effective adjunct to clinical training, but no studies have examined its effects on quality and efficiency of care., Methods: Trainees from 4 University Hospitals in East Denmark were included (N = 54). Participants were randomized to either simulation-based ultrasound training and clinical training (intervention group, n = 28), or to clinical training only (control group, n = 26).The primary outcome was patient-reported discomfort during transvaginal ultrasound examinations performed by study participants. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported perceived safety and confidence in ultrasound provider. Finally, the need for trainee supervision or repeated patient examinations was recorded., Results: In total, 1150 patient ratings were collected. The intervention was associated with a reduction of patient discomfort by 18.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 10.7-25.5; P < 0.001), and with a 7.9% (95% CI, 0.5-14.7; P = 0.04) increase in perceived safety. The intervention group participants received 11.1% (95% CI, 2.5-18.9) higher scores on patients' confidence compared with control group participants (P = 0.01). When the number of days of clinical training was doubled, the odds for trainee supervision or repeated patient examination was reduced by 45.3% (95% CI, 33.5-55.1) and 19.8% (95% CI, 4.1-32.9) in the intervention and control group, respectively (P = 0.005)., Conclusions: Simulation-based ultrasound training improved quality of care and reduced the need for repeated patient examination and trainee supervision.

Introduction: Dyad learning occurs when two students work together to acquire new skills and knowledge. Several studies have provided evidence to support the educational rationale for dyad learning in the controlled simulated setting. However, the role of dyad learning in the clinical setting remains uncertain. Unlike the simulated setting, learning in the clinical setting depends on a complex interplay between medical students, doctors, nurses and patients potentially making dyad learning less valuable in clerkships. The objective of this study was to explore how key stakeholders perceive the value of implementing dyad learning during medical students' clinical clerkships. Methods: In a constructivist qualitative study, we conducted 51 semi‐structured interviews with 36 key stakeholders involved in dyad learning, including 10 medical students, 12 doctors, five nurses and nine patients. Data were coded inductively using thematic analysis, then coded deductively using stakeholder theory as a theoretical framework. Results: We found that stakeholders generally perceived the educational impact of dyad learning in the clinical setting similarly but disagreed on its value. Students emphasised that dyad learning made them participate more actively during patient encounters and patients did not mind having two students present. Doctors and nurses considered dyad learning disruptive to the balance between service and training and reported that it did not resonate with their perception of good patient care. Conclusion: Dyad learning enables students to be more active during their clinical clerkships, but it easily disrupts the balance between service and training. This disruption may be exacerbated by the shifted balance in priorities and values between different stakeholder groups, as well as by making implicit teaching obligations more explicit for supervising doctors and nurses. Consequently, implementing dyad learning may not be perceived as valuable by doctors and nurses in the clinical setting, regardless of its pedagogical rationale. The authors demonstrate that collaborative learning between pairs of medical students is perceived and valued differently by different stakeholders in the clinical setting, particularly with respect to tge patient perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decade, ultrasound simulators have been increasingly used as an adjunct to clinical training in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Studies have shown that providing initial simulation-based ultrasound training leads to sustained improvements in clinical performances1 including improved diagnostic accuracy,2 reduced need for supervised practice, and decreased patient discomfort.3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To achieve international consensus across multiple specialties on a generic ultrasound rating scale using a Delphi technique. Methods: Ultrasound experts from Obstetrics-Gynaecology, Surgery, Urology, Radiology, Rheumatology, Emergency Medicine, and Gastro-Enterology representing North America, Australia, and Europe were identified. A multi-round survey was conducted to obtain consensus between these experts. Of 60 invited experts, 44 experts agreed to participate in the first Delphi round, 41 remained in the second round, and 37 completed the third Delphi round. Seven key elements of the ultrasound examination were identified from existing literature and recommendations from international ultrasound societies. All experts rated the importance of these seven elements on a five-point Likert scale in the first round and suggested potential new elements for the assessment of ultrasound skills. In the second round, the experts re-rated all elements and a third round was conducted to allow final comments. Agreement on which elements to include in the final rating scale was pre-defined as more than 80% of the experts rating an element four or five, on importance to the ultrasound examination. Results: Two additional elements were suggested by more than 10% of the experts in the first Delphi round. Consensus was obtained to include these two new elements along with five of the original elements in the final assessment instrument: 1) Indication for the examination 2) Applied knowledge of ultrasound equipment 3) Image optimization 4) Systematic examination 5) Interpretation of images 6) Documentation of examination and 7) Medical decision making. Conclusion: International multispecialty consensus was achieved on the content of a generic ultrasound rating scale. This is the first step to ensure valid assessment of clinicians in different medical specialties using ultrasound. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]