Point‐of‐Care Ultrasound in Undergraduate Urology Education: A Prospective Control‐Intervention Study
Objectives The effect of point‐of‐care ultrasound (US) training on clinical reasoning in undergraduate medical education remains largely unknown, with concerns arising about possible confusion among learners when such clinical tools are introduced too early. We studied the effect of a urology point‐...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of ultrasound in medicine 2018-09, Vol.37 (9), p.2209-2213 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2213 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 2209 |
container_title | Journal of ultrasound in medicine |
container_volume | 37 |
creator | Olszynski, Paul Anderson, Jordan Trinder, Krista Domes, Trustin |
description | Objectives
The effect of point‐of‐care ultrasound (US) training on clinical reasoning in undergraduate medical education remains largely unknown, with concerns arising about possible confusion among learners when such clinical tools are introduced too early. We studied the effect of a urology point‐of‐care US module on the performance of questions designed to assess clinical reasoning in urinary tract obstruction and voiding dysfunction.
Methods
All second‐year medical students at the University of Saskatchewan (Regina [n = 36] and Saskatoon [n = 61]) were enrolled in the study. Each cohort participated in the urology point‐of‐care US module concurrently with its Foundations in the Kidney and Urinary Tract course. The Regina cohort completed the point‐of‐care US module 1 week before the Saskatoon cohort, thus allowing for a control‐intervention comparison of script concordance question scores to evaluate the effect that the urology point‐of‐care US module had on clinical reasoning skills. Secondary outcomes included program evaluation metrics, such as overall course performance, urology point‐of‐care US objective structured clinical examination performance, and student course evaluation data.
Results
The introduction of the urology point‐of‐care US module was not associated with a deterioration in scores on script concordance questions. There were no statistically significant differences between the Regina and Saskatoon students in their responses to the script concordance questions. There were statistically significant increases in student self‐reported achievement of learning objectives, with the effect size being medium to large (Cohen d, 0.5–0.8).
Conclusions
Point‐of‐care US training complements standard undergraduate classroom teaching of urology. Students effectively learned the skills to apply point‐of‐care US in their assessment of patients, and this process did not interfere with achieving the course objectives. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/jum.14571 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2007980243</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2007980243</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3911-379f93ecfde01c50376d6673b82a82b166a10a14d2c848de55ea9f7d8cadbd093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10LtOwzAYhmELgaAUBm4AZYQhrQ9JHLNVFUeBQILOkWv_qQKpXWynqBuXwDVyJRha2FjswY9eyR9CRwQPCMZ0-NzNByTLOdlCPZLnOBUFYduohykv04wKvof2vX-OFBOe7aI9KjJe5AXroZcH25jw-f5h63iMpYNk0gYnve2MThqTTIwGN3NSdzLEN2dbO1sl57pTMjTWnCWj5MFZvwAVmiUkY2tCNLF1bQK4JZhvlTyGTq8O0E4tWw-Hm7uPJhfnT-Or9Pb-8no8uk0VE4SkjItaMFC1BkxUjhkvdFFwNi2pLOmUFIUkWJJMU1VmpYY8Bylqrksl9VRjwfroZN1dOPvagQ_VvPEK2lYasJ2vKMZclJhmLNLTNVXxD95BXS1cM5duVRFcfW9bxW2rn22jPd5ku-kc9J_8HTOC4Rq8NS2s_i9VN5O7dfIL8GuH2Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2007980243</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Point‐of‐Care Ultrasound in Undergraduate Urology Education: A Prospective Control‐Intervention Study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Olszynski, Paul ; Anderson, Jordan ; Trinder, Krista ; Domes, Trustin</creator><creatorcontrib>Olszynski, Paul ; Anderson, Jordan ; Trinder, Krista ; Domes, Trustin</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
The effect of point‐of‐care ultrasound (US) training on clinical reasoning in undergraduate medical education remains largely unknown, with concerns arising about possible confusion among learners when such clinical tools are introduced too early. We studied the effect of a urology point‐of‐care US module on the performance of questions designed to assess clinical reasoning in urinary tract obstruction and voiding dysfunction.
Methods
All second‐year medical students at the University of Saskatchewan (Regina [n = 36] and Saskatoon [n = 61]) were enrolled in the study. Each cohort participated in the urology point‐of‐care US module concurrently with its Foundations in the Kidney and Urinary Tract course. The Regina cohort completed the point‐of‐care US module 1 week before the Saskatoon cohort, thus allowing for a control‐intervention comparison of script concordance question scores to evaluate the effect that the urology point‐of‐care US module had on clinical reasoning skills. Secondary outcomes included program evaluation metrics, such as overall course performance, urology point‐of‐care US objective structured clinical examination performance, and student course evaluation data.
Results
The introduction of the urology point‐of‐care US module was not associated with a deterioration in scores on script concordance questions. There were no statistically significant differences between the Regina and Saskatoon students in their responses to the script concordance questions. There were statistically significant increases in student self‐reported achievement of learning objectives, with the effect size being medium to large (Cohen d, 0.5–0.8).
Conclusions
Point‐of‐care US training complements standard undergraduate classroom teaching of urology. Students effectively learned the skills to apply point‐of‐care US in their assessment of patients, and this process did not interfere with achieving the course objectives.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0278-4297</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1550-9613</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jum.14571</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29476563</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Canada ; clinical reasoning ; Curriculum ; education ; Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods ; emergency medicine ; Humans ; medical education ; Point-of-Care Systems ; point‐of‐care ultrasound ; Ultrasonics - education ; Ultrasonography ; urology ; Urology - education</subject><ispartof>Journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2018-09, Vol.37 (9), p.2209-2213</ispartof><rights>2018 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine</rights><rights>2018 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3911-379f93ecfde01c50376d6673b82a82b166a10a14d2c848de55ea9f7d8cadbd093</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3911-379f93ecfde01c50376d6673b82a82b166a10a14d2c848de55ea9f7d8cadbd093</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3102-5652</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjum.14571$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjum.14571$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29476563$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Olszynski, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Jordan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trinder, Krista</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Domes, Trustin</creatorcontrib><title>Point‐of‐Care Ultrasound in Undergraduate Urology Education: A Prospective Control‐Intervention Study</title><title>Journal of ultrasound in medicine</title><addtitle>J Ultrasound Med</addtitle><description>Objectives
The effect of point‐of‐care ultrasound (US) training on clinical reasoning in undergraduate medical education remains largely unknown, with concerns arising about possible confusion among learners when such clinical tools are introduced too early. We studied the effect of a urology point‐of‐care US module on the performance of questions designed to assess clinical reasoning in urinary tract obstruction and voiding dysfunction.
Methods
All second‐year medical students at the University of Saskatchewan (Regina [n = 36] and Saskatoon [n = 61]) were enrolled in the study. Each cohort participated in the urology point‐of‐care US module concurrently with its Foundations in the Kidney and Urinary Tract course. The Regina cohort completed the point‐of‐care US module 1 week before the Saskatoon cohort, thus allowing for a control‐intervention comparison of script concordance question scores to evaluate the effect that the urology point‐of‐care US module had on clinical reasoning skills. Secondary outcomes included program evaluation metrics, such as overall course performance, urology point‐of‐care US objective structured clinical examination performance, and student course evaluation data.
Results
The introduction of the urology point‐of‐care US module was not associated with a deterioration in scores on script concordance questions. There were no statistically significant differences between the Regina and Saskatoon students in their responses to the script concordance questions. There were statistically significant increases in student self‐reported achievement of learning objectives, with the effect size being medium to large (Cohen d, 0.5–0.8).
Conclusions
Point‐of‐care US training complements standard undergraduate classroom teaching of urology. Students effectively learned the skills to apply point‐of‐care US in their assessment of patients, and this process did not interfere with achieving the course objectives.</description><subject>Canada</subject><subject>clinical reasoning</subject><subject>Curriculum</subject><subject>education</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods</subject><subject>emergency medicine</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>medical education</subject><subject>Point-of-Care Systems</subject><subject>point‐of‐care ultrasound</subject><subject>Ultrasonics - education</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>urology</subject><subject>Urology - education</subject><issn>0278-4297</issn><issn>1550-9613</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10LtOwzAYhmELgaAUBm4AZYQhrQ9JHLNVFUeBQILOkWv_qQKpXWynqBuXwDVyJRha2FjswY9eyR9CRwQPCMZ0-NzNByTLOdlCPZLnOBUFYduohykv04wKvof2vX-OFBOe7aI9KjJe5AXroZcH25jw-f5h63iMpYNk0gYnve2MThqTTIwGN3NSdzLEN2dbO1sl57pTMjTWnCWj5MFZvwAVmiUkY2tCNLF1bQK4JZhvlTyGTq8O0E4tWw-Hm7uPJhfnT-Or9Pb-8no8uk0VE4SkjItaMFC1BkxUjhkvdFFwNi2pLOmUFIUkWJJMU1VmpYY8Bylqrksl9VRjwfroZN1dOPvagQ_VvPEK2lYasJ2vKMZclJhmLNLTNVXxD95BXS1cM5duVRFcfW9bxW2rn22jPd5ku-kc9J_8HTOC4Rq8NS2s_i9VN5O7dfIL8GuH2Q</recordid><startdate>201809</startdate><enddate>201809</enddate><creator>Olszynski, Paul</creator><creator>Anderson, Jordan</creator><creator>Trinder, Krista</creator><creator>Domes, Trustin</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3102-5652</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201809</creationdate><title>Point‐of‐Care Ultrasound in Undergraduate Urology Education: A Prospective Control‐Intervention Study</title><author>Olszynski, Paul ; Anderson, Jordan ; Trinder, Krista ; Domes, Trustin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3911-379f93ecfde01c50376d6673b82a82b166a10a14d2c848de55ea9f7d8cadbd093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Canada</topic><topic>clinical reasoning</topic><topic>Curriculum</topic><topic>education</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods</topic><topic>emergency medicine</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>medical education</topic><topic>Point-of-Care Systems</topic><topic>point‐of‐care ultrasound</topic><topic>Ultrasonics - education</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>urology</topic><topic>Urology - education</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Olszynski, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Jordan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trinder, Krista</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Domes, Trustin</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of ultrasound in medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Olszynski, Paul</au><au>Anderson, Jordan</au><au>Trinder, Krista</au><au>Domes, Trustin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Point‐of‐Care Ultrasound in Undergraduate Urology Education: A Prospective Control‐Intervention Study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of ultrasound in medicine</jtitle><addtitle>J Ultrasound Med</addtitle><date>2018-09</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>2209</spage><epage>2213</epage><pages>2209-2213</pages><issn>0278-4297</issn><eissn>1550-9613</eissn><abstract>Objectives
The effect of point‐of‐care ultrasound (US) training on clinical reasoning in undergraduate medical education remains largely unknown, with concerns arising about possible confusion among learners when such clinical tools are introduced too early. We studied the effect of a urology point‐of‐care US module on the performance of questions designed to assess clinical reasoning in urinary tract obstruction and voiding dysfunction.
Methods
All second‐year medical students at the University of Saskatchewan (Regina [n = 36] and Saskatoon [n = 61]) were enrolled in the study. Each cohort participated in the urology point‐of‐care US module concurrently with its Foundations in the Kidney and Urinary Tract course. The Regina cohort completed the point‐of‐care US module 1 week before the Saskatoon cohort, thus allowing for a control‐intervention comparison of script concordance question scores to evaluate the effect that the urology point‐of‐care US module had on clinical reasoning skills. Secondary outcomes included program evaluation metrics, such as overall course performance, urology point‐of‐care US objective structured clinical examination performance, and student course evaluation data.
Results
The introduction of the urology point‐of‐care US module was not associated with a deterioration in scores on script concordance questions. There were no statistically significant differences between the Regina and Saskatoon students in their responses to the script concordance questions. There were statistically significant increases in student self‐reported achievement of learning objectives, with the effect size being medium to large (Cohen d, 0.5–0.8).
Conclusions
Point‐of‐care US training complements standard undergraduate classroom teaching of urology. Students effectively learned the skills to apply point‐of‐care US in their assessment of patients, and this process did not interfere with achieving the course objectives.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>29476563</pmid><doi>10.1002/jum.14571</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3102-5652</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0278-4297 |
ispartof | Journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2018-09, Vol.37 (9), p.2209-2213 |
issn | 0278-4297 1550-9613 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2007980243 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Canada clinical reasoning Curriculum education Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods emergency medicine Humans medical education Point-of-Care Systems point‐of‐care ultrasound Ultrasonics - education Ultrasonography urology Urology - education |
title | Point‐of‐Care Ultrasound in Undergraduate Urology Education: A Prospective Control‐Intervention Study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T18%3A48%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Point%E2%80%90of%E2%80%90Care%20Ultrasound%20in%20Undergraduate%20Urology%20Education:%20A%20Prospective%20Control%E2%80%90Intervention%20Study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20ultrasound%20in%20medicine&rft.au=Olszynski,%20Paul&rft.date=2018-09&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=2209&rft.epage=2213&rft.pages=2209-2213&rft.issn=0278-4297&rft.eissn=1550-9613&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jum.14571&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2007980243%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2007980243&rft_id=info:pmid/29476563&rfr_iscdi=true |