| Literature DB >> 33614934 |
Sanjana Bhalla1, Lisa O'Byrne2, Issa Beegun2, Dora Amos1, James Arwyn Jones1, Zaid Awad1, Neil Tolley1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test a novel, low-cost, home-made model for needle aspiration of PTA.To ascertain whether simulation-based teaching using this model was superior to lecture-based teaching in increasing confidence and reducing anxiety relating to PTA aspiration.To assess whether there was an improvement in outcomes for PTA patients at one hospital following the delivery of a simulation-based training session using our model.Entities:
Keywords: aspiration; peritonsillar abscess; quinsy; simulation
Year: 2020 PMID: 33614934 PMCID: PMC7883616 DOI: 10.1002/lio2.453
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol ISSN: 2378-8038
FIGURE 1Home‐made quinsy model (anterior view). Users are able to simulate how they would drain the quinsy using this model by being able to retract the tongue and wear a headlight as they would for a real patient. The model can be secured with a plastic screw to a table top, and the part of the model with a quinsy can also be adjusted at different angles if required
FIGURE 2A prefilled balloon is placed posteriorly into the model and secured with a cork. The balloon can be filled with any material to simulate pus—we used color gel soap. Delegates can then practice the one‐handed aspiration technique of draining a quinsy using the model. A different balloon should be used each time a participant practices on the model
FIGURE 3confidence levels for aspiration of quinsy before and after simulation‐based induction. This was measured using a 10 point Likert scale. A score of 10 indicated extremely confident and a score of 0 indicated no confidence regarding the procedure. The surveys were completed on the day, immediately prior to and after the teaching sessions
FIGURE 4Confidence levels for each candidate for aspiration of quinsy before and after lecture‐based induction. This was measured using a 10 point Likert scale. A score of 10 indicated extremely confident and a score of 0 indicated no confidence regarding the procedure. The surveys were completed on the day, immediately prior to and after the teaching sessions
Comparison of outcomes for patients pre‐ and post‐simulation‐based teaching
| Comparison pre‐ and post‐SBT | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preintervention | Postintervention | Relative risk (RR) | 95% CI |
| |
| N | 22 | 28 | – | – | – |
| CT neck | 4 (18.18%) | 3 (10.71%) | 0.59 | 0.15‐2.36 | 0.46 |
| Dry tap | 9 (50%) | 9 (39.13%) | 0.79 | 0.38‐1.64 | 0.52 |
| Average aspiration attempts | 1.27 | 1.43 | – | – | – |
| Reaccumulation | 3 (16.67%) | 0 (0%) | 0.11 | 0.01–2.08 | 0.14 |
| Reattendance | 5 (22.72%) | 2 (7.14%) | 0.31 | 0.07‐1.47 | 0.14 |
| Pus aspirated on reattendance | 5 (100%) | 0 (100%) | – | – | – |
| Average length of stay (days) | 1.29 | 1.17 | – | – | – |
Notes: The patients selected were those who were treated by the junior doctors who took part in simulation‐based teaching to allow for comparison.