Rebecca F Brown1, Christopher Tignanelli2, Joanna Grudziak3, Shelley Summerlin-Long3, Jeffrey Laux4, Andy Kiser5, Sean P Montgomery3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Electronic address: rebecca.brown@unchealth.unc.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Hospitals, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 4. The North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences (NC TraCS) Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 5. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Simulation is quickly becoming vital to resident education, but commercially available central line models are costly and little information exists to evaluate their realism. This study compared an inexpensive homemade simulator to three commercially available simulators and rated model characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen physicians, all having placed >50 lines in their lifetime, completed blinded central line insertions on three commercial and one homemade model (made of silicone, tubing, and a pressurized pump system). Participants rated each model on the realism of its ultrasound image, cannulation feel, manometry, and overall. They then ranked the models based on the same variables. Rankings were assessed with Friedman's and post hoc Conover's tests, using alphas 0.05 and 0.008 (Bonferroni corrected), respectively. RESULTS: The models significantly differed (P < 0.0004) in rankings across all dimensions. The homemade model was ranked best on ultrasound image, manometry measurement, cannulation feel, and overall quality by 71%, 67%, 53%, and 77% of raters, respectively. It was found to be statistically superior to the second rated model in all (P < 0.003) except cannulation feel (P = 0.134). Ultrasound image and manometry measurement received the lowest ratings across all models, indicating less realistic simulation. The cost of the homemade model was $400 compared to $1000-$8000 for commercial models. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that an inexpensive, homemade central line model is as good or better than commercially available models. Areas for potential improvement within models include the ultrasound image and ability to appropriately measure manometry of accessed vessels.
BACKGROUND: Simulation is quickly becoming vital to resident education, but commercially available central line models are costly and little information exists to evaluate their realism. This study compared an inexpensive homemade simulator to three commercially available simulators and rated model characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen physicians, all having placed >50 lines in their lifetime, completed blinded central line insertions on three commercial and one homemade model (made of silicone, tubing, and a pressurized pump system). Participants rated each model on the realism of its ultrasound image, cannulation feel, manometry, and overall. They then ranked the models based on the same variables. Rankings were assessed with Friedman's and post hoc Conover's tests, using alphas 0.05 and 0.008 (Bonferroni corrected), respectively. RESULTS: The models significantly differed (P < 0.0004) in rankings across all dimensions. The homemade model was ranked best on ultrasound image, manometry measurement, cannulation feel, and overall quality by 71%, 67%, 53%, and 77% of raters, respectively. It was found to be statistically superior to the second rated model in all (P < 0.003) except cannulation feel (P = 0.134). Ultrasound image and manometry measurement received the lowest ratings across all models, indicating less realistic simulation. The cost of the homemade model was $400 compared to $1000-$8000 for commercial models. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that an inexpensive, homemade central line model is as good or better than commercially available models. Areas for potential improvement within models include the ultrasound image and ability to appropriately measure manometry of accessed vessels.
Keywords:
Central line insertion education; Central line insertion simulation; Medical education; Patient simulation; Resident training; Surgical procedures education
Authors: Catalin S Ezaru; Michael P Mangione; Todd M Oravitz; James W Ibinson; Richard J Bjerke Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2009-04-17 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Stephen Varga; Jennifer Smith; Michael Minneti; Joseph Carey; Scott Zakaluzny; Thomas Noguchi; Demetrios Demetriades; Peep Talving Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: J Rello; A Ochagavia; E Sabanes; M Roque; D Mariscal; E Reynaga; J Valles Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Irene W Y Ma; Mary E Brindle; Paul E Ronksley; Diane L Lorenzetti; Reg S Sauve; William A Ghali Journal: Acad Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Michael C Wadman; Carol S Lomneth; Lance H Hoffman; Wesley G Zeger; Lina Lander; Richard A Walker Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Richard P Ramonell; Matthew Schimmel; Meredith Greer; Caroline G Coleman; William S Bender; Lisa M Daniels Journal: Med Educ Online Date: 2021-12