Literature DB >> 35237360

A comparison of handheld and standard ultrasound in Swiss medical students.

Mark Slader1, Hayley Young1, Margot Barker1, Kylie Prentice1, Katherine Bogaard1, Charlene Yuan1, Soheil Saadat2, Shadi Lahham2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of ultrasound (US) within healthcare has inspired the development of new US technology. There have been few studies comparing the use of handheld US to standard US for medical education. This research aims to determine whether a handheld US device can provide a comparable primary learning experience to that of a standard US machine.
METHODS: Over two days of instruction, participants were taught and evaluated on core US fundamentals. The standard group received instruction on standard US machines, while the handheld group received instruction on handheld US devices. Participants completed a qualitative survey regarding their experience. Six hundred and four images were obtained and graded by two emergency medicine physicians.
RESULTS: A total of 119 Swiss medical students were enrolled in our study. There was no statistically significant difference in the US assessment measurements, except for faster endpoint septal separation (EPSS) vascular setup time in the handheld group (P=0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in participants' perceived difficulty of US learning (P=0.198), comfort level (P=0.188), or self-estimated capability to perform US in the future (P=0.442). There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of correctly obtained images (P=0.211) or images that were clinically useful (P=0.256). The median quality score of images obtained by the standard group was eight compared to seven in handheld group (P<0.01).
CONCLUSION: Our data suggest a handheld US machine can perform as well as a standard US machine as an educational tool despite sacrifices in image quality. Copyright: © World Journal of Emergency Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Handheld ultrasound; Medical education; Switzerland; Ultrasound education

Year:  2022        PMID: 35237360      PMCID: PMC8861347          DOI: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2022.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Emerg Med        ISSN: 1920-8642


  24 in total

1.  Routinely adding ultrasound examinations by pocket-sized ultrasound devices improves inpatient diagnostics in a medical department.

Authors:  Ole Christian Mjolstad; Havard Dalen; Torbjorn Graven; Jens Olaf Kleinau; Oyvind Salvesen; Bjorn Olav Haugen
Journal:  Eur J Intern Med       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 4.487

2.  Integration of Ultrasound in Medical Education at United States Medical Schools: A National Survey of Directors' Experiences.

Authors:  Vi Am Dinh; Jasmine Y Fu; Samantha Lu; Alan Chiem; J Christian Fox; Michael Blaivas
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2016-01-18       Impact factor: 2.153

3.  Hand-held ultrasound-the real stethoscope.

Authors:  Ole-A Breithardt
Journal:  Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-01-21       Impact factor: 6.875

4.  The current status of ultrasound education in United States medical schools.

Authors:  Elizabeth Nicholas; Alan A Ly; Anna M Prince; Paul F Klawitter; Kevin Gaskin; Louise A Prince
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 2.153

Review 5.  Medical Student Ultrasound Education: A WFUMB Position Paper, Part I.

Authors:  Christoph F Dietrich; Beatrice Hoffmann; Jacques Abramowicz; Radu Badea; Barbara Braden; Vito Cantisani; Maria C Chammas; Xin-Wu Cui; Yi Dong; Odd Helge Gilja; Roman Hari; Harvey Nisenbaum; Delwyn Nicholls; Christian Pállson Nolsøe; Dieter Nürnberg; Helmut Prosch; Maija Radzina; Florian Recker; Alexander Sachs; Adrian Saftoiu; Andreas Serra; Linda Sweet; Sudhir Vinayak; Sue Westerway; Yi-Hong Chou; Michael Blaivas
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  The Use of Handheld Ultrasound Devices - An EFSUMB Position Paper.

Authors:  Michael Bachmann Nielsen; Vito Cantisani; Paul S Sidhu; Radu Badea; Tomasz Batko; Jonathan Carlsen; Michel Claudon; Caroline Ewertsen; Carmen Garre; Jordan Genov; Odd Helge Gilja; Roald Havre; Mateusz Kosiak; Wojciek Kosiak; James Pilcher; Helmut Prosch; Maija Radzina; Vasileios Rafailidis; Alexander Rykkje; Andreas Serra; Alexandros Sotiriadis; Mia Østergaard; Christoph F Dietrich
Journal:  Ultraschall Med       Date:  2018-12-21       Impact factor: 6.548

7.  The state of ultrasound education in U.S. medical schools: results of a national survey.

Authors:  David P Bahner; Ellen Goldman; David Way; Nelson A Royall; Yiju Teresa Liu
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 6.893

Review 8.  Ultrasound imaging in medical student education: Impact on learning anatomy and physical diagnosis.

Authors:  Sokpoleak So; Rita M Patel; Steven L Orebaugh
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2016-06-10       Impact factor: 5.958

Review 9.  Cardiac Point-of-Care Ultrasound: State-of-the-Art in Medical School Education.

Authors:  Amer M Johri; Joshua Durbin; Joseph Newbigging; Robert Tanzola; Ryan Chow; Sabe De; James Tam
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 5.251

10.  First Year Medical Students, Personal Handheld Ultrasound Devices, and Introduction of Insonation in Medical Education.

Authors:  Mollie Ireson; Simrit Warring; Jose R Medina-Inojosa; Maria T O'Malley; Wojciech Pawlina; Nirusha Lachman; Jagat Narula; Anjali Bhagra
Journal:  Ann Glob Health       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 2.462

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.