Patel Badar, Dobiesz Valerie A, Goldsmith Andrew J, Montgomery Mary W, Osman Nora Y, Pelletier Stephen R, Miller Michael S, Shields Helen M
Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2025 Jun 25;16:1047-1053. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S518639. eCollection 2025.
Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) excels in the assessment of patients with hypotension and shock. Whether using real patients or a manikin simulator to teach POCUS skills is preferable is not completely clear. We designed a randomized-controlled trial to compare these two different teaching methods of POCUS.
We enrolled 47 medical students on an internal medicine sub-internship in this randomized-controlled trial. Twenty-four students were randomly assigned to the experimental group to learn from volunteer patients in the emergency department (ED), and 23 were randomly assigned to the control group to learn from a manikin simulator in a simulation center. All students received a didactic workshop focused on hypotension and shock, followed by supervised learning from either volunteer patients in the ED or a manikin simulator in a simulation center. Student knowledge and confidence were assessed through a pre-survey before the workshop, post-survey after the workshop, and a 3-month longitudinal survey after both the workshop and supervised POCUS learning were completed. The primary end point was assessment of student knowledge and confidence at the 3-month longitudinal time period.
At the 3-month longitudinal survey, there was no statistical difference in the primary end point of questions correctly answered by students in the experimental group compared to those in the control group (88% vs 86.5%, p = 0.713, NS), and no statistical difference in reported confidence between students in the experimental group from those in the control group (4.22 vs 4.10, p = 0.846, NS).
In this randomized-controlled trial using POCUS to assess hypotension and shock, there were no significant differences in learner knowledge and confidence between students in the ED experimental group learning from volunteer patients versus the control group learning from a manikin simulator indicating that the methods may be equally effective in teaching POCUS.
床旁超声(POCUS)在评估低血压和休克患者方面表现出色。使用真实患者还是人体模型模拟器来教授POCUS技能更优尚不完全清楚。我们设计了一项随机对照试验来比较这两种不同的POCUS教学方法。
在这项随机对照试验中,我们招募了47名在内科实习的医学生。24名学生被随机分配到实验组,在急诊科向志愿者患者学习,23名学生被随机分配到对照组,在模拟中心向人体模型模拟器学习。所有学生都参加了一个关于低血压和休克的理论讲习班,然后在急诊科向志愿者患者或在模拟中心向人体模型模拟器进行监督学习。通过讲习班前的预调查、讲习班后的后调查以及讲习班和POCUS监督学习完成后的3个月纵向调查来评估学生的知识和信心。主要终点是在3个月纵向时间段评估学生的知识和信心。
在3个月纵向调查中,实验组学生正确回答问题的主要终点与对照组相比无统计学差异(88%对86.5%,p = 0.713,无显著性差异),实验组学生与对照组学生报告的信心也无统计学差异(4.22对4.10,p = 0.846,无显著性差异)。
在这项使用POCUS评估低血压和休克的随机对照试验中,急诊科实验组向志愿者患者学习的学生与对照组向人体模型模拟器学习的学生在学习者知识和信心方面没有显著差异,这表明这两种方法在教授POCUS方面可能同样有效。