Haskins SC, Feldman D, Fields KG, Kirksey MA, Lien CA, Luu TH, Nejim JA, Osorio JA, Yang EI. Teaching a Point-of-Care Ultrasound Curriculum to Anesthesiology Trainees With Traditional Didactic Lectures or an Online E-Learning Platform: A Pilot Study.
J Educ Perioper Med 2018;
20:E624. [PMID:
30510972 PMCID:
PMC6257000]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) provides real-time, dynamic clinical evidence for providers to make potentially lifesaving medical decisions; however, these tools cannot be used effectively without appropriate training. Although there is always the option of traditional didactic methods, there has been a recent trend toward a "reverse classroom" web-based model using online e-learning modules. Our objective was to collect pilot data that would justify a future randomized controlled trial, comparing traditional didactics to an e-learning PoCUS curriculum for lung ultrasonography (LUS) and the focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) exam.
METHODS
Anesthesiology interns, residents (CA 1-3), and fellow trainees enrolled in a LUS and FAST exam course and were randomized to receive didactic lectures or e-learning. Trainees completed knowledge pre- and posttests. Surveys were administered to gauge learning satisfaction. All trainees completed a hands-on-training (HOT) workshop. Image acquisition was assessed through practical tests before HOT, immediately after HOT, and 5 months later.
RESULTS
Eighteen trainees completed the study. There was no evidence of a difference in change in LUS knowledge test score from baseline to posttest between the e-learning and didactic groups (difference in median percentage point change [95 % CI]: 6.6 [-10.0, 23.2]; P = .411). There was no evidence of a difference in LUS knowledge posttest scores (difference in median percentage points [95% CI]: -0.9 [-4.8, 3.0]; P = .629), FAST knowledge posttest score (0 [incalculable]; P = .999), or post-HOT practical test score (-4.2 [-24.6, 16.3]; P = .672) between groups. There was no evidence of a difference in degree of satisfaction with learning experience between groups (odds ratios [95% CI]: 1.75 [0.31, 9.94]; P = .528).
CONCLUSIONS
There was no evidence of a difference between the e-learning and traditional didactic groups in learning or satisfaction outcomes. These results justify establishing an adequately powered, randomized controlled trial assessing the noninferiority of e-learning to traditional didactics for teaching LUS and FAST.
Collapse