Howell Grant L, Chávez Germán, McCannel Colin A, Quiros Peter A, Al-Hashimi Saba, Yu Fei, Fung Simon, DeGiorgio Christopher M, Huang Yue Ming, Straatsma Bradley R, Braddock Clarence H, Holland Gary N
UCLA Stein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles; Department of Ophthalmology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles.
UCLA Stein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles; Department of Ophthalmology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles; UCLA Simulation Center, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles.
Am J Ophthalmol. 2022 Jun;238:187-196. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2021.11.016. Epub 2021 Nov 19.
To compare results of simulator-based vs traditional training of medical students in direct ophthalmoscopy.
Randomized controlled trial.
First-year medical student volunteers completed 1 hour of didactic instruction regarding direct ophthalmoscopes, fundus anatomy, and signs of disease. Students were randomized to an additional hour of training on a direct ophthalmoscope simulator (n = 17) or supervised practice examining classmates (traditional method, n = 16). After 1 week of independent student practice using assigned training methods, masked ophthalmologist observers assessed student ophthalmoscopy skills (technique, efficiency, and global performance) during examination of 5 patient volunteers, using 5-point Likert scales. Students recorded findings and lesion location for each patient. Two masked ophthalmologists graded answer sheets independently using 3-point scales. Students completed surveys before randomization and after assessments. Training groups were compared for grades, observer- and patient-assigned scores, and survey responses.
The simulator group reported longer practice times than the traditional group (P = .002). Observers assigned higher technique scores to the simulator group after adjustment for practice time (P = .034). Combined grades (maximum points = 20) were higher for the simulator group (median: 5.0, range: 0.0-11.0) than for the traditional group (median: 4.0, range: 0.0-9.0), although the difference was not significant. The simulator group was less likely to mistake the location of a macular scar in 1 patient (odds ratio: 0.28, 95% confidence interval: 0.056-1.35, P = .013).
Direct ophthalmoscopy is difficult, regardless of training technique, but simulator-based training has apparent advantages, including improved technique, the ability to localize fundus lesions, and a fostering of interest in learning ophthalmoscopy, reflected by increased practice time.
比较基于模拟器训练与传统训练方式对医学生直接检眼镜检查的效果。
随机对照试验。
一年级医学生志愿者完成1小时关于直接检眼镜、眼底解剖及疾病体征的理论教学。学生被随机分为两组,一组额外接受1小时直接检眼镜模拟器训练(n = 17),另一组接受监督下检查同学的实践训练(传统方法,n = 16)。在学生使用指定训练方法进行1周独立实践后,由蒙面眼科医生观察者在检查5名患者志愿者时,使用5分制李克特量表评估学生的检眼镜检查技能(技术、效率和整体表现)。学生记录每位患者的检查结果和病变位置。两名蒙面眼科医生使用3分制独立对答卷评分。学生在随机分组前和评估后完成调查问卷。比较训练组在成绩、观察者及患者给出的评分和调查问卷回复方面的差异。
模拟器组报告的练习时间比传统组更长(P = 0.002)。在对练习时间进行调整后,观察者给模拟器组的技术评分更高(P = 0.034)。模拟器组的综合成绩(满分20分)高于传统组(中位数:模拟器组5.0,范围:0.0 - 11.0;传统组4.0,范围:0.0 - 9.0),尽管差异不显著。模拟器组在1名患者中误判黄斑瘢痕位置的可能性较小(优势比:0.28,95%置信区间:0.056 - 1.35,P = 0.013)。
无论采用何种训练技术,直接检眼镜检查都具有难度,但基于模拟器的训练具有明显优势,包括技术提高、能够定位眼底病变以及通过增加练习时间体现出对学习检眼镜检查的兴趣培养。