| Literature DB >> 28191251 |
Brooke Osborne1, Nayana Parange1, Kerry Thoirs1.
Abstract
Introduction: The benefits of the use of ultrasound technology for point of care obstetric health evaluation have led to increased focus on training programs for physicians wanting to develop skills in this area. Simulation, in a variety of formats, has always played a role in medical and health training, with proven benefits. This systematic review determines the level of evidence available to support the use of high fidelity ultrasound simulators in the training of obstetric ultrasound scanning skills to health professionals.Entities:
Keywords: high fidelity; obstetric ultrasound; simulation; training
Year: 2015 PMID: 28191251 PMCID: PMC5024965 DOI: 10.1002/j.2205-0140.2015.tb00209.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Australas J Ultrasound Med ISSN: 1836-6864
Figure 1Search results
Summary of the included studies.
| Author, date, and country | Maul, et al. 2004. Germany. | Monsky, et al. 2002. USA. | Burden, et al. 2013. UK. | Bernardi, et al. 2013. Oral presentation abstract. France. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose of the study | To evaluate how an ultrasound simulator could be used in the training of physicians to perform first and second trimester screening | To evaluate the effectiveness of using an ultrasound simulator for training and then assessing resident preparedness prior to overnight call | To assess the ability for obstetric trainees with different levels of expertise to use a simulator to produce accurate biometry results | To evaluate obstetric ultrasound simulation as a training tool for beginners |
| Participant group | 45 certified obstetricians for first trimester screening 7 obstetrics and gynaecology specialists for second trimester screening | 8 first year residents each year over two years | 18 obstetric trainees with little experience | 20 medical students |
| Study design and control | Case‐control with intervention applied. One control group | Case study. No control | Comparative study. No control | Case‐control with intervention applied. One control group |
| Type of simulated training program (intervention) | Fetal biometry theory training course with one group also practicing on simulator | Simulator use incorporated into ultrasound training on clinical rotations. Residents instructed to spend 8–10 hours practicing on simulators | Basic training programs for simulator orientation. Unsure of time frame, other content training or practice sessions | Basic theoretical obstetric sonography course with one group also practicing on simulator |
| Type of simulator | SonoTrainer | UltraSim | UltraSim | Vimedix® |
| Trimester of pregnancy | First and second | First | First and third | Second |
| Time interval between training and testing | Not stated | Not stated | Not stated | Not stated |
| Alternate training program as comparator to simulated training | Theoretical training only | Nil | Nil | Theoretical training only |
| Ethics obtained | Not discussed | Not discussed | Yes | Not discussed |
| Outcome measures | First trimester – accuracy of NT and CRL measurements on pregnant volunteers. Difference in the mean measurement from ‘gold standard’ recorded. Second trimester – ability to detect abnormalities. | Image quality, diagnosis accuracy, suggested treatment, measurements against a gold standard. | CRL, HC, and FL biometry measurements, and the time taken to obtain these. Mean percentage difference from the target value (computer's gold standard). Trainee and experienced sonographers' results compared against each other and against the gold standard | BPD, AC, FL biometry measurements, and fetal and placental position performed on simulator and real patient. Quality of measurements compared based on Objective Quality Criteria scoring. Time taken to complete scan. |
|
| Simulation training improves outcomes when incorporated into a training program, when compared with a training program alone. | Simulator use in training improved resident preparedness for on‐call work. Training program was modified between the years to address shortfalls discovered in the testing of the first cohort. | Improvement in time and accuracy of ultrasound skills over the study period seen in trainees and, to a lesser degree, the experts. | Higher scores for those who trained with the simulator. Similar time taken to complete scan. |
NT = Nuchal Translucency, CRL = Crown Rump Length, BPD Length = Biparietal Diameter, HC = Head Circumference, AC = Abdominal Circumference, FL = Femur