Slader Mark, Young Hayley, Barker Margot, Prentice Kylie, Bogaard Katherine, Yuan Charlene, Saadat Soheil, Lahham Shadi
School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine 92617, USA.
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine 92868, USA.
World J Emerg Med. 2022;13(2):85-90. doi: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2022.017.
The use of ultrasound (US) within healthcare has inspired the development of new US technology. There have been few studies comparing the use of handheld US to standard US for medical education. This research aims to determine whether a handheld US device can provide a comparable primary learning experience to that of a standard US machine.
Over two days of instruction, participants were taught and evaluated on core US fundamentals. The standard group received instruction on standard US machines, while the handheld group received instruction on handheld US devices. Participants completed a qualitative survey regarding their experience. Six hundred and four images were obtained and graded by two emergency medicine physicians.
A total of 119 Swiss medical students were enrolled in our study. There was no statistically significant difference in the US assessment measurements, except for faster endpoint septal separation (EPSS) vascular setup time in the handheld group (=0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in participants' perceived difficulty of US learning (=0.198), comfort level (=0.188), or self-estimated capability to perform US in the future (=0.442). There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of correctly obtained images (=0.211) or images that were clinically useful (=0.256). The median quality score of images obtained by the standard group was eight compared to seven in handheld group (<0.01).
Our data suggest a handheld US machine can perform as well as a standard US machine as an educational tool despite sacrifices in image quality.
超声（US）在医疗保健领域的应用推动了新型超声技术的发展。很少有研究比较手持式超声与标准超声在医学教育中的应用。本研究旨在确定手持式超声设备能否提供与标准超声设备相当的初级学习体验。
在为期两天的教学中，对参与者进行超声核心基础知识的教学和评估。标准组接受标准超声设备的教学，而手持组接受手持式超声设备的教学。参与者完成了关于他们体验的定性调查。获得了604张图像并由两名急诊医学医生进行评分。
共有119名瑞士医学生参与了我们的研究。在美国评估测量中，除了手持组的终点室间隔分离（EPSS）血管设置时间更快（=0.001）外，没有统计学上的显著差异。参与者对手持式超声学习的感知难度（=0.198）、舒适度（=0.188）或未来进行超声检查的自我估计能力（=0.442）没有统计学上的显著差异。正确获取的图像百分比（=0.211）或临床有用的图像百分比（=0.256）没有统计学上的显著差异。标准组获得的图像的质量中位数评分为8分，而手持组为7分（<0.01）。
我们的数据表明，尽管图像质量有所牺牲，但手持式超声设备作为一种教育工具，其性能与标准超声设备相当。
