K T Boden1, A Rickmann2, F N Fries3, K Xanthopoulou3, D Alnaggar3, K Januschowski2,4, B Seitz3, B Käsmann-Kellner3, J Schrecker5. 1. Augenklinik Sulzbach, Knappschaftsklinikum Saar, An der Klinik 10, 66280, Sulzbach, Deutschland. drkarlboden@gmail.com. 2. Augenklinik Sulzbach, Knappschaftsklinikum Saar, An der Klinik 10, 66280, Sulzbach, Deutschland. 3. Klinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland. 4. Klinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland. 5. Klinik für Augenheilkunde, Rudolf-Virchow-Klinikum, Glauchau, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of direct ophthalmoscopy in non-ophthalmological specialties seems to be decreasing in the clinical routine. This could be due to a lack of training and thus an uncertain assessment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptance of learning direct ophthalmoscopy on a simulator in comparison to the classical teaching method among students. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Within the framework of the student block internship for ophthalmology, a total of 34 students took part in the project. The first group received classical training, the second group received simulator training. The learning success was assessed by an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). RESULTS: The simulator training group showed a significantly higher points score in individual disciplines. The subjects in the classical group achieved a learning success in the OSCE of 78%. In the simulator-based group a higher score of 91% was achieved with a lower scatter in all subdisciplines. DISCUSSION: The patient and instructor-independent availability of the teaching materials, a reduction of light exposure for patients and test subjects, as well as a standardized and controlled mediation of physiological and pathological findings can be emphasized as advantages of the tested simulator. CONCLUSION: The simulator-based training for learning direct funduscopy is effective. The virtual reality simulator evaluated in this project can improve the training of students and residents.
BACKGROUND: The use of direct ophthalmoscopy in non-ophthalmological specialties seems to be decreasing in the clinical routine. This could be due to a lack of training and thus an uncertain assessment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptance of learning direct ophthalmoscopy on a simulator in comparison to the classical teaching method among students. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Within the framework of the student block internship for ophthalmology, a total of 34 students took part in the project. The first group received classical training, the second group received simulator training. The learning success was assessed by an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). RESULTS: The simulator training group showed a significantly higher points score in individual disciplines. The subjects in the classical group achieved a learning success in the OSCE of 78%. In the simulator-based group a higher score of 91% was achieved with a lower scatter in all subdisciplines. DISCUSSION: The patient and instructor-independent availability of the teaching materials, a reduction of light exposure for patients and test subjects, as well as a standardized and controlled mediation of physiological and pathological findings can be emphasized as advantages of the tested simulator. CONCLUSION: The simulator-based training for learning direct funduscopy is effective. The virtual reality simulator evaluated in this project can improve the training of students and residents.
Authors: Daniel J Solverson; Robert A Mazzoli; William R Raymond; Mark L Nelson; Elizabeth A Hansen; Mark F Torres; Anuja Bhandari; Craig D Hartranft Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2009 Impact factor: 1.929
Authors: Emily B Graubart; Evan L Waxman; Susan H Forster; JoAnn A Giaconi; Jamie B Rosenberg; Prithvi S Sankar; Anju Goyal; Rukhsana G Mirza Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: George M Saleh; Julia Lamparter; Paul M Sullivan; Fiona O'Sullivan; Badrul Hussain; Ioannis Athanasiadis; Andre S Litwin; Stewart N Gillan Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Daniel Shu Wei Ting; Shaun Sebastian Khung Peng Sim; Christine Wen Leng Yau; Mohamad Rosman; Ai Tee Aw; Ian Yew San Yeo Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-06-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Ramak Roohipoor; Mehdi Yaseri; Amir Teymourpour; Carolyn Kloek; John B Miller; John I Loewenstein Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Svenja Deuchler; Clemens Wagner; Pankaj Singh; Michael Müller; Rami Al-Dwairi; Rachid Benjilali; Markus Schill; Hanns Ackermann; Dimitra Bon; Thomas Kohnen; Benjamin Schoene; Michael Koss; Frank Koch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 3.240