OBJECTIVES: The current review examines the effectiveness of simulation-based medical education (SBME) for training health professionals in cardiac physical examination and examines the relative effectiveness of key instructional design features. METHODS: Data sources included a comprehensive, systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus through May 2011. Included studies investigated SBME to teach health profession learners cardiac physical examination skills using outcomes of knowledge or skill. We carried out duplicate assessment of study quality and data abstraction and pooled effect sizes using random effects. RESULTS: We identified 18 articles for inclusion. Thirteen compared SBME to no-intervention (either single group pre-post comparisons or SBME added to other instruction common to all learners, such as traditional bedside teaching), three compared SBME to other educational interventions, and two compared two SBME interventions. Meta-analysis of the 13 no-intervention comparison studies demonstrated that simulation-based instruction in cardiac auscultation was effective, with pooled effect sizes of 1.10 (95 % CI 0.49-1.72; p < 0.001; I(2) = 92.4 %) for knowledge outcomes and 0.87 (95 % CI 0.52-1.22; p < 0.001; I(2) = 91.5 %) for skills. In sub-group analysis, hands-on practice with the simulator appeared to be an important teaching technique. Narrative review of the comparative effectiveness studies suggests that SBME may be of similar effectiveness to other active educational interventions, but more studies are required. LIMITATIONS: The quantity of published evidence and the relative lack of comparative effectiveness studies limit this review. CONCLUSIONS: SBME is an effective educational strategy for teaching cardiac auscultation. Future studies should focus on comparing key instructional design features and establishing SBME's relative effectiveness compared to other educational interventions.
OBJECTIVES: The current review examines the effectiveness of simulation-based medical education (SBME) for training health professionals in cardiac physical examination and examines the relative effectiveness of key instructional design features. METHODS: Data sources included a comprehensive, systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus through May 2011. Included studies investigated SBME to teach health profession learners cardiac physical examination skills using outcomes of knowledge or skill. We carried out duplicate assessment of study quality and data abstraction and pooled effect sizes using random effects. RESULTS: We identified 18 articles for inclusion. Thirteen compared SBME to no-intervention (either single group pre-post comparisons or SBME added to other instruction common to all learners, such as traditional bedside teaching), three compared SBME to other educational interventions, and two compared two SBME interventions. Meta-analysis of the 13 no-intervention comparison studies demonstrated that simulation-based instruction in cardiac auscultation was effective, with pooled effect sizes of 1.10 (95 % CI 0.49-1.72; p < 0.001; I(2) = 92.4 %) for knowledge outcomes and 0.87 (95 % CI 0.52-1.22; p < 0.001; I(2) = 91.5 %) for skills. In sub-group analysis, hands-on practice with the simulator appeared to be an important teaching technique. Narrative review of the comparative effectiveness studies suggests that SBME may be of similar effectiveness to other active educational interventions, but more studies are required. LIMITATIONS: The quantity of published evidence and the relative lack of comparative effectiveness studies limit this review. CONCLUSIONS:SBME is an effective educational strategy for teaching cardiac auscultation. Future studies should focus on comparing key instructional design features and establishing SBME's relative effectiveness compared to other educational interventions.
Authors: M S Gordon; G A Ewy; J M Felner; A D Forker; I Gessner; C McGuire; J W Mayer; D Patterson; A Sajid; R A Waugh Journal: Med Clin North Am Date: 1980-03 Impact factor: 5.456
Authors: David A Cook; Rose Hatala; Ryan Brydges; Benjamin Zendejas; Jason H Szostek; Amy T Wang; Patricia J Erwin; Stanley J Hamstra Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-09-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Leslie A Bilello; Nicole M Dubosh; Jason J Lewis; Matthew M Hall; Jonathan Fisher; Edward A Ullman Journal: Adv Med Educ Pract Date: 2018-08-17
Authors: Deena Hossino; Christina Hensley; Karen Lewis; Marie Frazier; Renee Domanico; Melissa Burley; Jeffrey Harris; Bobby Miller; Susan L Flesher Journal: SAGE Open Med Date: 2018-06-08
Authors: Hannah Beks; Kevin Mc Namara; Elizabeth Manias; Andrew Dalton; Erica Tong; Michael Dooley Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 2.655