- Email: [email protected]
SIMULATOR-BASED CRITICAL CARE TEACHING AMONG MEDICAL STUDENTS: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
October 2009, Vol 136, No. 4_MeetingAbstracts Abstract: Poster Presentations | October 2009
SIMULATOR-BASED CRITICAL CARE TEACHING AMONG MEDICAL STUDENTS: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL Adel M. Bassily Marcus, MD*; Roopa Kohli-Seth, MD; Irina Petrinko, MD; John M. Oropello, MD; Anthony Manasia, MD; Sharif H. Ellozy, MD; Christopher Strother, MD; Ernest Benjamin, MD The Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY Chest. 2009;136(4_MeetingAbstracts):11S. doi:10.1378/chest.136.4_MeetingAbstracts.11S-b
Abstract PURPOSE: To evaluate if the use of the modern human medical simulator in critical care teaching increases medical students’ knowledge of critical care in comparison with the traditional lecture. METHODS: We hypothesized that students who receive simulator-based teaching would outperform students who receive a standard lecture. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of simulation based-teaching versus traditional instruction among clinical medical students, using pre-post written evaluations (n = 31). After randomization, students received a pre-test followed by either a simulator session or a standard lecture session. The standard group received a traditional power-point lecture while the simulator group received an interactive scenario-based teaching with a computerized human patient simulator. RESULTS: Within the simulator group, and within the standard group, there was a highly significant improvement from the pre-test to the post-test. But the degree of change from pretest to post-test was not significantly different between the groups. Simulator group: mean pre-test = 48.6%, mean post-test = 90.7%, p < 0.0001 using the paired t test. Standard group: mean pre-test = 44.1%, mean post-test = 78.2%, p < 0.0001 using the paired t test. Degree of change (pre–post): 42.1% for simulator group, 34.1% for standard group: p = 0.23 using the t test for two independent samples. CONCLUSION: The superiority of the simulator-based nonprocedural skills teaching could not be established after a single instructional session. Multi-simulator sessions and/or a larger sample size may be needed to demonstrate if a significant difference exists. Despite the apparent benefits of utilizing the patient simulation, our results are consistent with prior studies in other medical specialties on the comparative effects of technology-enhanced learning.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A single simulator based teaching session is as effective as a conventional lecture in teaching nonprocedural skills in critical care medicine. A potential simulator benefit is longer knowledge retention time. This would require a follow up study. DISCLOSURE: Adel Bassily Marcus, No Financial Disclosure Information; No Product/Research Disclosure Information Tuesday, November 3, 2009 12:45 PM - 2:00 PM
SIMULATOR-BASED CRITICAL CARE TEACHING AMONG MEDICAL STUDENTS: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL Adel M. Bassily Marcus, MD*; Roopa Kohli-Seth, MD; Irina Petrinko, MD; John M. Oropello, MD; Anthony Manasia, MD; Sharif H. Ellozy, MD; Christopher Strother, MD; Ernest Benjamin, MD The Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY Chest. 2009;136(4_MeetingAbstracts):11S. doi:10.1378/chest.136.4_MeetingAbstracts.11S-b
Abstract PURPOSE: To evaluate if the use of the modern human medical simulator in critical care teaching increases medical students’ knowledge of critical care in comparison with the traditional lecture. METHODS: We hypothesized that students who receive simulator-based teaching would outperform students who receive a standard lecture. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of simulation based-teaching versus traditional instruction among clinical medical students, using pre-post written evaluations (n = 31). After randomization, students received a pre-test followed by either a simulator session or a standard lecture session. The standard group received a traditional power-point lecture while the simulator group received an interactive scenario-based teaching with a computerized human patient simulator. RESULTS: Within the simulator group, and within the standard group, there was a highly significant improvement from the pre-test to the post-test. But the degree of change from pretest to post-test was not significantly different between the groups. Simulator group: mean pre-test = 48.6%, mean post-test = 90.7%, p < 0.0001 using the paired t test. Standard group: mean pre-test = 44.1%, mean post-test = 78.2%, p < 0.0001 using the paired t test. Degree of change (pre–post): 42.1% for simulator group, 34.1% for standard group: p = 0.23 using the t test for two independent samples. CONCLUSION: The superiority of the simulator-based nonprocedural skills teaching could not be established after a single instructional session. Multi-simulator sessions and/or a larger sample size may be needed to demonstrate if a significant difference exists. Despite the apparent benefits of utilizing the patient simulation, our results are consistent with prior studies in other medical specialties on the comparative effects of technology-enhanced learning.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A single simulator based teaching session is as effective as a conventional lecture in teaching nonprocedural skills in critical care medicine. A potential simulator benefit is longer knowledge retention time. This would require a follow up study. DISCLOSURE: Adel Bassily Marcus, No Financial Disclosure Information; No Product/Research Disclosure Information Tuesday, November 3, 2009 12:45 PM - 2:00 PM