BACKGROUND:Medical student training in clinical breast examination is deficient at most medical schools. The use of silicone breast models may allow the education of abnormal and normal findings. This study examines the efficacy of silicone breast models to educate medical students in clinical breast examinations during their third-year surgical rotation. METHODS:Medical students were randomly selected to participate in formalized training sessions in clinical breast examination or as a control group. Presession and postsession testing with silicone breast models were performed. True positives (masses that were present and documented by the student) and false positives (masses that were not present but were documented by the student) were recorded. RESULTS:Medical students undergoing the training sessions demonstrated improved true positive scores (2.2 to 2.8; P <0.05) as well as improved false positive scores (3.0 to 2.0; P = 0.30) and total scores (-0.8 to 0.8; P = 0.07). Students who documented an increase in the number of breast examinations during their rotations had statistically lower false positive scores. CONCLUSIONS: Students after formalized clinical breast examination sessions do improve their ability to detect breast masses, although they continue to detect masses that are not present. Experience of actual breast examinations during their surgical rotations may refine their clinical skills.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Medical student training in clinical breast examination is deficient at most medical schools. The use of silicone breast models may allow the education of abnormal and normal findings. This study examines the efficacy of silicone breast models to educate medical students in clinical breast examinations during their third-year surgical rotation. METHODS: Medical students were randomly selected to participate in formalized training sessions in clinical breast examination or as a control group. Presession and postsession testing with silicone breast models were performed. True positives (masses that were present and documented by the student) and false positives (masses that were not present but were documented by the student) were recorded. RESULTS: Medical students undergoing the training sessions demonstrated improved true positive scores (2.2 to 2.8; P <0.05) as well as improved false positive scores (3.0 to 2.0; P = 0.30) and total scores (-0.8 to 0.8; P = 0.07). Students who documented an increase in the number of breast examinations during their rotations had statistically lower false positive scores. CONCLUSIONS: Students after formalized clinical breast examination sessions do improve their ability to detect breast masses, although they continue to detect masses that are not present. Experience of actual breast examinations during their surgical rotations may refine their clinical skills.