Use of Low-Cost Task Trainer for Emergency Department Thoracotomy Training in General Surgery Residency Program.

OBJECTIVE

Emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) is an uncommon but potentially lifesaving procedure that warrants familiarity with anatomy, instruments, and indications necessary for completion. To address this need, we developed a low-cost EDT trainer. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a low-cost EDT trainer to teach emergency department thoracotomy with a discussion-based teaching session. Secondary objective was to study the face validity of the low-cost EDT trainer.

DESIGN

A prospective 2-phase randomized control study was conducted. Participants were randomly divided into two groups. In phase one, baseline medical knowledge for both groups was assessed using a multiple-choice question pretest. In Group 1, each participant was taught EDT using a one-on-one discussion with a trauma surgeon, whereas Group 2 used the EDT trainer and debriefing for training. In phase 2 (1 month later), all participants completed a knowledge retention test and performed a videoed EDT using our EDT trainer, the video recordings were later reviewed by content experts blinded to the study participants using a checklist with a maximum score of 22. The participants also completed a reaction survey at the end of phase 2 of the study.

SETTING

OhioHealth Riverside Methodist Hospital, an urban tertiary care academic hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine senior surgery residents from training years 3 to 5.

RESULTS

The mean score for the performance of the procedure for the simulation-based (Group 2) was significantly higher than that of the discussion-based (Group 1) (Rater 1: 21.2 ± 0.8 vs. 19.0 ± 2.0, p = 0.05, Rater 2: 20.4 ± 1.5 vs. 18.3±1.0, p = 0.04). Group 2 also was quicker than Group 1 in deciding to start the procedure by approximately 56 seconds. When comparing the mean pretest knowledge score to the mean knowledge retention score 30 days after training, the discussion-based group improved from 58.33% to 81.25% (p = 0.01); the simulation-trained group's scores remained at 68.33%. All the participants agreed or strongly agreed that the simulator provided a realistic opportunity to perform EDT and improved their confidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this pilot study support our hypothesis that using a low-cost EDT trainer effectively improves general surgery residents' confidence and procedural skills scores in a simulated environment. Further training with low-cost simulators may provide surgical residents with deliberate practice opportunities and improve performance when learning low-frequency procedures.