Daniel S McQueen1, Michael J Begg, Simon R J Maxwell. 1. Departments of Neuroscience, Learning Technology Section and Clinical Pharmacology Unit, University of Edinburgh, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, Edinburgh, UK. d.s.mcqueen@ed.ac.uk
Abstract
AIMS: Dose calculation errors can cause serious life-threatening clinical incidents. We designed eDrugCalc as an online self-assessment tool to develop and evaluate calculation skills among medical students. METHODS: We undertook a prospective uncontrolled study involving 1727 medical students in years 1-5 at the University of Edinburgh. Students had continuous access to eDrugCalc and were encouraged to practise. Voluntary self-assessment was undertaken by answering the 20 questions on six occasions over 30 months. Questions remained fixed but numerical variables changed so each visit required a fresh calculation. Feedback was provided following each answer. RESULTS: Final-year students had a significantly higher mean score in test 6 compared with test 1 [16.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16.2, 17.0 vs. 12.6, 95% CI 11.9, 13.4; n= 173, P < 0.0001 Wilcoxon matched pairs test] and made a median of three vs. seven errors. Performance was highly variable in all tests with 2.7% of final-year students scoring < 10/20 in test 6. Graduating students in 2009 (30 months' exposure) achieved significantly better scores than those in 2007 (only 6 months): mean 16.5, 95% CI 16.0, 17.0, n= 184 vs. 15.1, 95% CI 14.5, 15.6, n= 187; P < 0.0001, Mann-Whitney test. Calculations based on percentage concentrations and infusion rates were poorly performed. Feedback showed that eDrugCalc increased confidence in calculating doses and was highly rated as a learning tool. CONCLUSIONS: Medical student performance of dose calculations improved significantly after repeated exposure to an online formative dose-calculation package and encouragement to develop their numeracy. Further research is required to establish whether eDrugCalc reduces calculation errors made in clinical practice.
AIMS: Dose calculation errors can cause serious life-threatening clinical incidents. We designed eDrugCalc as an online self-assessment tool to develop and evaluate calculation skills among medical students. METHODS: We undertook a prospective uncontrolled study involving 1727 medical students in years 1-5 at the University of Edinburgh. Students had continuous access to eDrugCalc and were encouraged to practise. Voluntary self-assessment was undertaken by answering the 20 questions on six occasions over 30 months. Questions remained fixed but numerical variables changed so each visit required a fresh calculation. Feedback was provided following each answer. RESULTS: Final-year students had a significantly higher mean score in test 6 compared with test 1 [16.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16.2, 17.0 vs. 12.6, 95% CI 11.9, 13.4; n= 173, P < 0.0001 Wilcoxon matched pairs test] and made a median of three vs. seven errors. Performance was highly variable in all tests with 2.7% of final-year students scoring < 10/20 in test 6. Graduating students in 2009 (30 months' exposure) achieved significantly better scores than those in 2007 (only 6 months): mean 16.5, 95% CI 16.0, 17.0, n= 184 vs. 15.1, 95% CI 14.5, 15.6, n= 187; P < 0.0001, Mann-Whitney test. Calculations based on percentage concentrations and infusion rates were poorly performed. Feedback showed that eDrugCalc increased confidence in calculating doses and was highly rated as a learning tool. CONCLUSIONS: Medical student performance of dose calculations improved significantly after repeated exposure to an online formative dose-calculation package and encouragement to develop their numeracy. Further research is required to establish whether eDrugCalc reduces calculation errors made in clinical practice.
Authors: D W Wheeler; K D Whittlestone; R Salvador; D F Wood; A J Johnston; H L Smith; D K Menon Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2005-11-25 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: B A Degnan; L J Murray; C P Dunling; K D Whittlestone; T D A Standley; A K Gupta; D W Wheeler Journal: Anaesthesia Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 6.955
Authors: D W Bates; D J Cullen; N Laird; L A Petersen; S D Small; D Servi; G Laffel; B J Sweitzer; B F Shea; R Hallisey Journal: JAMA Date: 1995-07-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Laura Kalfsvel; Jorie Versmissen; Adriaan van Doorn; Walter van den Broek; Hugo van der Kuy; Floor van Rosse Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 3.716