BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) provides real-time, dynamic clinical evidence for providers to make potentially lifesaving medical decisions; however, these tools cannot be used effectively without appropriate training. Although there is always the option of traditional didactic methods, there has been a recent trend toward a "reverse classroom" web-based model using online e-learning modules. Our objective was to collect pilot data that would justify a future randomized controlled trial, comparing traditional didactics to an e-learning PoCUS curriculum for lung ultrasonography (LUS) and the focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) exam. METHODS: Anesthesiology interns, residents (CA 1-3), and fellow trainees enrolled in a LUS and FAST exam course and were randomized to receive didactic lectures or e-learning. Trainees completed knowledge pre- and posttests. Surveys were administered to gauge learning satisfaction. All trainees completed a hands-on-training (HOT) workshop. Image acquisition was assessed through practical tests before HOT, immediately after HOT, and 5 months later. RESULTS: Eighteen trainees completed the study. There was no evidence of a difference in change in LUS knowledge test score from baseline to posttest between the e-learning and didactic groups (difference in median percentage point change [95 % CI]: 6.6 [-10.0, 23.2]; P = .411). There was no evidence of a difference in LUS knowledge posttest scores (difference in median percentage points [95% CI]: -0.9 [-4.8, 3.0]; P = .629), FAST knowledge posttest score (0 [incalculable]; P = .999), or post-HOT practical test score (-4.2 [-24.6, 16.3]; P = .672) between groups. There was no evidence of a difference in degree of satisfaction with learning experience between groups (odds ratios [95% CI]: 1.75 [0.31, 9.94]; P = .528). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference between the e-learning and traditional didactic groups in learning or satisfaction outcomes. These results justify establishing an adequately powered, randomized controlled trial assessing the noninferiority of e-learning to traditional didactics for teaching LUS and FAST.
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) provides real-time, dynamic clinical evidence for providers to make potentially lifesaving medical decisions; however, these tools cannot be used effectively without appropriate training. Although there is always the option of traditional didactic methods, there has been a recent trend toward a "reverse classroom" web-based model using online e-learning modules. Our objective was to collect pilot data that would justify a future randomized controlled trial, comparing traditional didactics to an e-learning PoCUS curriculum for lung ultrasonography (LUS) and the focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) exam. METHODS: Anesthesiology interns, residents (CA 1-3), and fellow trainees enrolled in a LUS and FAST exam course and were randomized to receive didactic lectures or e-learning. Trainees completed knowledge pre- and posttests. Surveys were administered to gauge learning satisfaction. All trainees completed a hands-on-training (HOT) workshop. Image acquisition was assessed through practical tests before HOT, immediately after HOT, and 5 months later. RESULTS: Eighteen trainees completed the study. There was no evidence of a difference in change in LUS knowledge test score from baseline to posttest between the e-learning and didactic groups (difference in median percentage point change [95 % CI]: 6.6 [-10.0, 23.2]; P = .411). There was no evidence of a difference in LUS knowledge posttest scores (difference in median percentage points [95% CI]: -0.9 [-4.8, 3.0]; P = .629), FAST knowledge posttest score (0 [incalculable]; P = .999), or post-HOT practical test score (-4.2 [-24.6, 16.3]; P = .672) between groups. There was no evidence of a difference in degree of satisfaction with learning experience between groups (odds ratios [95% CI]: 1.75 [0.31, 9.94]; P = .528). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference between the e-learning and traditional didactic groups in learning or satisfaction outcomes. These results justify establishing an adequately powered, randomized controlled trial assessing the noninferiority of e-learning to traditional didactics for teaching LUS and FAST.
Authors: Elke Platz; Katja Goldflam; Maria Mennicke; Emilio Parisini; Michael Christ; Christian Hohenstein Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Feroze Mahmood; Robina Matyal; Nikolaos Skubas; Mario Montealegre-Gallegos; Madhav Swaminathan; Andre Denault; Roman Sniecinski; John D Mitchell; Mark Taylor; Stephen Haskins; Sajid Shahul; Achikam Oren-Grinberg; Patrick Wouters; Douglas Shook; Scott T Reeves Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Stephen C Haskins; Natasha A Desai; Kara G Fields; Jemiel A Nejim; Stephanie Cheng; Struan H Coleman; Danyal H Nawabi; Bryan T Kelly Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Colleen Cuca; Patrick Scheiermann; Dorothea Hempel; Gabriele Via; Armin Seibel; Magnus Barth; Tim O Hirche; Felix Walcher; Raoul Breitkreutz Journal: Emerg Med Int Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 1.112
Authors: Elaine Situ-LaCasse; Josie Acuña; Dang Huynh; Richard Amini; Steven Irving; Kara Samsel; Asad E Patanwala; David E Biffar; Srikar Adhikari Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Kahra Nix; E Liang Liu; Laura Oh; Youyou Duanmu; Tiffany Fong; Nicholas Ashenburg; Rachel B Liu Journal: Acad Med Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 7.840