| Literature DB >> 35885609 |
Eunbyul Cho1, Young-Min Han2, Yeonseok Kang1,3, Jae-Hyo Kim1,4, Min-Seop Shin5, Myungjin Oh6, Nam-Geun Cho1, Hyun-Jong Jung1,4, Jungtae Leem1,4.
Abstract
This study aimed to report the specific methods and investigate the educational effects of diagnostic musculoskeletal ultrasound training and the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) for traditional medicine students. Scanning volar wrist and diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome were selected for musculoskeletal ultrasound to train students to use the basic functions of the ultrasound device and scan various structures including tendons, nerves, and arteries. The students were divided into two groups: one group had 8 weeks of training with mock OSCE experience and received feedback about their scan images, and the other group had 3 weeks of training with flipped learning. The OSCE was implemented on the last day of the training. The subjective learning outcomes were analyzed as students' evaluation with a 5-point scale, and the objective learning outcomes were analyzed using OSCE scores evaluated with a pre-validated checklist. Of the 111 students, 60 (54.1%) responded to the questionnaire. Overall satisfaction with this ultrasound training was high (4.5 ± 0.60). The average OSCE score in the 8-week group was significantly higher than that in the 3-week group. The students' self-assessment showed no significant differences between the two groups. Proficiency in using ultrasound is affected by the practice time and feedback. Ultrasound training should be further expanded as a required curriculum to meet students' needs and achieve learning objectives in the clinical skills education of Korean medicine colleges. Further studies are needed on ultrasound education, especially guided interventions for traditional medicine students.Entities:
Keywords: OSCE; carpal tunnel syndrome; diagnostic ultrasound; learning outcomes; survey
Year: 2022 PMID: 35885609 PMCID: PMC9323213 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12071707
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1(A) Scanning the anterior aspect of the wrist. The ultrasound indicator is in the radial side. (B) Structures that can be observed with ultrasound in the proximal carpal tunnel: Transverse carpal ligament (arrow); Sca, scaphoid; Pis, pisiform; MN, median nerve; UN, ulnar nerve; UA, ulnar artery; Fcr, flexor carpi radialis; Fpl, flexor pollicis longus; Fcu, flexor carpi ulnaris. Tendons of the flexor digitorum superficialis and flexor digitorum profundus are located deep within the carpal tunnel.
Figure 2Diagnostic criteria for carpal tunnel syndrome by ultrasound relevant to palmar bowing of the flexor retinaculum. The yellow dot line of D1 shows a line connecting the top of the pisiform and the scaphoid bone. D2 is the distance from D1 to the transverse carpal ligament.
Figure 3Diagnostic criteria for carpal tunnel syndrome by ultrasound relevant to the enlargement of the nerve proximal to the flexor retinaculum. A1 is the cross-sectional size of the median nerve, proximal to the flexor retinaculum.
Comparison of opinions on ultrasound training and OSCE in the 3-week group and 8-week group.
| Question | Total ( | 3-Week Group ( | 8-Week Group ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Median (IQR) | Mean ± SD | Median (IQR) | ||
| Were the learning objectives of the ultrasound training appropriate? | 4.52 ± 0.57 | 4.49 ± 0.56 | 5 (4–5) | 4.57 ± 0.59 | 5 (4–5) | 0.530 |
| Were the learning objectives and ultrasound training contents related well? | 4.52 ± 0.57 | 4.49 ± 0.56 | 5 (4–5) | 4.57 ± 0.59 | 5 (4–5) | 0.530 |
| Was it easy to understand the contents of the ultrasound training? | 4.6 ± 0.49 | 4.59 ± 0.50 | 5 (4–5) | 4.61 ± 0.50 | 5 (4–5) | 0.914 |
| Has ultrasound training improved your knowledge about the anatomy and physiology of carpal tunnels? | 4.75 ± 0.44 | 4.68 ± 0.47 | 5 (4–5) | 4.87 ± 0.34 | 5 (5–5) | 0.094 |
| Did the ultrasound practice help you develop ultrasound skills? | 4.5 ± 0.62 | 4.43 ± 0.60 | 4 (4–5) | 4.61 ± 0.66 | 5 (4–5) | 0.182 |
| Did the ultrasound OSCE help motivate independent practical training? | 4.45 ± 0.53 | 4.41 ± 0.55 | 4 (4–5) | 4.52 ± 0.51 | 5 (4–5) | 0.448 |
| Was the ultrasound OSCE difficult? | 2.98 ± 1.11 | 2.92 ± 1.06 | 3 (2–4) | 3.09 ± 1.20 | 3 (2–4) | 0.569 |
| Was the ultrasound OSCE time limit (5 min) enough for you? | 3.27 ± 1.22 | 2.97 ± 1.30 | 3 (2–4) | 3.74 ± 0.92 | 4 (3–4) | 0.019 * |
| Are you generally satisfied with this ultrasound training? | 4.5 ± 0.60 | 4.41 ± 0.60 | 4 (4–5) | 4.65 ± 0.57 | 5 (4–5) | 0.091 |
| Do you have any intentions of studying ultrasound more in the future? | 4.57 ± 0.56 | 4.57 ± 0.60 | 5 (4–5) | 4.57 ± 0.51 | 5 (4–5) | 0.804 |
| Are you willing to use ultrasound in clinical practice after graduation? | 4.10 ± 0.71 | 4.08 ± 0.76 | 4 (4–5) | 4.13 ± 0.63 | 4 (4–5) | 0.912 |
| Has your opinion about ultrasound usage changed positively through this education? | 4.33 ± 0.60 | 4.30 ± 0.66 | 4 (4–5) | 4.39 ± 0.50 | 4 (4–5) | 0.706 |
SD, standard deviation. Mann–Whitney U test was performed. * p < 0.05.
Comparison of self-assessment of ultrasound competency and attitude in the 3-week group and 8-week group.
| Items of Self-Assessment | Total ( | 3-Week Group | 8-Week Group | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Median (IQR) | Mean ± SD | Median (IQR) | ||
| I actively participated in ultrasound training. | 4.40 ± 0.74 | 4.27 ± 0.80 | 4 (4–5) | 4.61 ± 0.58 | 5 (4–5) | 0.089 |
| I was considerate of the subject during the ultrasound examination. | 4.35 ± 0.66 | 4.30 ± 0.70 | 4 (4–5) | 4.43 ± 0.59 | 4 (4–5) | 0.511 |
| I communicated appropriately with the subject during the ultrasound examination. | 4.45 ± 0.59 | 4.38 ± 0.64 | 4 (4–5) | 4.57 ± 0.51 | 5 (4–5) | 0.303 |
| I can use basic functions of ultrasound such as ultrasonic probe selection, depth and focus control, and freeze. | 4.52 ± 0.70 | 4.41 ± 0.80 | 5 (4–5) | 4.70 ± 0.47 | 5 (4–5) | 0.203 |
| I can identify the anterior structure of the wrist through ultrasound. | 4.35 ± 0.71 | 4.24 ± 0.80 | 4 (4–5) | 4.52 ± 0.51 | 5 (4–5) | 0.232 |
| I can do ultrasound scans according to the criteria for diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome. | 4.40 ± 0.67 | 4.30 ± 0.74 | 4 (4–5) | 4.57 ± 0.51 | 5 (4–5) | 0.192 |
SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range. Mann–Whitney U test was performed.
OSCE checklist for the ultrasound scan of the volar wrist and diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Students’ OSCE scores also presented as mean and standard deviation.
| Task | Score | Sub-Score | Mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Self-introduction | 1 | 0.99 ± 0.10 | |
| 2. Patient identification | 1 | 0.96 ± 0.19 | |
| 3. Explaining the ultrasound examination to the patient | 1 | 0.98 ± 0.13 | |
| 4. Hand hygiene before the examination | 2 | 1.46 ± 0.59 | |
| 5. Patient guidance | 2 | 1.86 ± 0.34 | |
| 6. Selecting the appropriate probe and setting the device | 3 | 1.43 ± 1.28 | |
| 6–1. Probe setting | 1 | 0.57 ± 0.50 | |
| 6–2. Selecting the area to be scanned | 1 | 0.57 ± 0.50 | |
| 6–3. Adjusting the depth to scan | 1 | 0.28 ± 0.45 | |
| 7. Applying the gel | 1 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | |
| 8. Probe tuning | 1 | 0.91 ± 0.29 | |
| 9. Probe handling | 1 | 0.83 ± 0.38 | |
| 10. Correct view of the (1) scaphoid, (2) pisiform, (3) median nerve, (4) ulnar artery, (5) flexor retinaculum, (6) flexor pollicis longus, (7) ulnar nerve, (8) flexor digitorum superficialis, flexor digitorum profundus, (9) flexor carpi radialis, (10) flexor carpi ulnaris | 3 | 2.33 ± 0.74 | |
| 10–1. 9–10 structures | 3 | ||
| 10–2. 4–8 structures | 2 | ||
| 10–3. 1–3 structures | 1 | ||
| 10–4. 0 structure | 0 | ||
| 11. Correct measurement according to diagnostic criteria of carpal tunnel syndrome and explaining the results | 3 | 2.21 ± 0.97 | |
| 11–1. Connecting the top of the scaphoid and the pisiform with a line | 1 | 0.76 ± 0.43 | |
| 11–2. Measuring the vertical distance between the line connecting the top of the scaphoid and the pisiform and the flexor retinaculum | 1 | 0.64 ± 0.48 | |
| 11–3. Explaining the examination results | 1 | 0.81 ± 0.39 | |
| 12. Correct measurement of the cross-sectional area of the median nerve and explaining the examination results | 3 | 1.65 ± 1.19 | |
| 12–1. Correct measurement of the cross-sectional area of the median nerve proximal to the flexor retinaculum | 2 | 1.07 ± 0.83 | |
| 12–2. Explaining the examination results | 1 | 0.58 ± 0.50 | |
| 13. Hand hygiene after the examination? | 2 | 0.30 ± 0.66 | |
| 14. Informing the patient about the examination’s completion and explaining the final findings after the examination | 2 | 1.05 ± 0.96 | |
| 15. Cleaning up the used devices and wiping off the gel | 2 | 1.04 ± 0.95 | |
| Total score | 28 | 19 ± 5.35 |
OSCE, Objective Structured Clinical Examination; SD, standard deviation.