Simulation of Abdomen Sonography. Evaluation of a New Ultrasound Simulator
Abstract AIM: We developed and evaluated a simulator for the sonography of the abdomen in order to improve the teaching quality in sonography training. METHOD: Eleven medicine residents who had received 4 to 12 months full time sonography training performed ultrasound examinations of the right upper...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ultraschall in der Medizin 2003-08, Vol.24 (4), p.239-244 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Abstract
AIM: We developed and evaluated a simulator
for the sonography of the abdomen in order to improve the teaching quality in
sonography training. METHOD: Eleven medicine residents
who had received 4 to 12 months full time sonography training performed
ultrasound examinations of the right upper quadrant in 5 consecutive patients
and in 5 simulator cases. The correctness of their findings and the time
required for the examinations were measured. The subjective confidence in their
findings and the handling of the ultrasound machines were rated on a visual
analogue scale. RESULTS: During patient ultrasound
examination 75 % (SEM 9 %) of all pathologic
findings were recognized by the residents, whereas 71 % (SEM
8 %) of the pathologies of the simulator cases were found. This
minimal difference was not significant in the paired, two sided t-test
(p = 0.15). Severe pathologies did not escape detection.
The time required for patient examination (10.57 min, SEM
3.25 min) was not significantly different
(p = 0.53) to the time required for the simulator cases
(9.59 min, SEM 2.98 min). The subjective confidence in the
sonographic findings did not differ significantly
(p = 0.39) between the real patient situation
(68 %, SEM 6 %) and the simulation
(64 %, SEM 12 %). Only the handling of the
ultrasound machines was judged to be significantly better
(p = 0.008) than the simulator (74 %, SEM
7 % vs. 61 %, SEM 12 %).
CONCLUSION: In this first direct cross over comparison
between real patient sonography and simulator based scanning we proved that the
simulator we developed simulates the real patient examination reliably and
reproducibly. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0172-4614 1438-8782 |
DOI: | 10.1055/s-2003-41713 |