Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Anesthesiology
Published in: BMC Anesthesiology 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Pilot study comparing simulation-based and didactic lecture-based critical care teaching for final-year medical students

Authors: Orsolya Solymos, Patrick O’Kelly, Criona M. Walshe

Published in: BMC Anesthesiology | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Simulation-based medical education has rapidly evolved over the past two decades, despite this, there are few published reports of its use in critical care teaching. We hypothesised that simulation-based teaching of a critical care topic to final-year medical students is superior to lecture-based teaching.

Methods

Thirty-nine final-year medical students were randomly assigned to either simulation-based or lecture-based teaching in the chosen critical care topic. The study was conducted over a 6-week period. Efficacy of each teaching method was compared through use of multiple choice questionnaires (MCQ) - baseline, post-teaching and 2 week follow-up. Student satisfaction was evaluated by means of a questionnaire. Feasibility and resource requirements were documented by teachers.

Results

Eighteen students were randomised to simulation-based, and 21 to lecture-based teaching. There were no differences in age and gender between groups (p > 0.05).
Simulation proved more resource intensive requiring specialised equipment, two instructors, and increased duration of teaching sessions (126.7 min (SD = 4.71) vs 68.3 min (SD = 2.36)).
Students ranked simulation-based teaching higher with regard to enjoyment (p = 0.0044), interest (p = 0.0068), relevance to taught subject (p = 0.0313), ease of understanding (p = 0.0476) and accessibility to posing questions (p = 0.001).
Both groups demonstrated improvement in post-teaching MCQ from baseline (p = 0.0002), with greater improvement seen among the simulation group (p = 0.0387), however, baseline scores were higher among the lecture group. The results of the 2-week follow-up MCQ and post-teaching MCQ were not statistically significant when each modality were compared.

Discussion

Simulation was perceived as more enjoyable by students. Although there was a greater improvement in post-teaching MCQ among the simulator group, baseline scores were higher among lecture group which limits interpretation of efficacy. Simulation is more resource intensive, as demonstrated by increased duration and personnel required, and this may have affected our results.

Conclusions

The current pilot may be of use in informing future studies in this area.
Literature
1.
Ogden PE, Cobbs LS, Howell MR, Sibbitt SJ, DiPette DJ. Clinical simulation: importance to the internal medicine educational mission. Am J Med. 2007;120:820–4.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Grenvik A, Schaefer JJ, DeVita MA, Rogers P. New aspects on critical care medicine training. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2004;10(4):233–7.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM. Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee including the Pediatric Subgroup. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(2):580–637.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Ker J, Bradley P. Simulation in medical education. Edinburgh: Association for the Study of Medical Education (ASME). 2007
5.
Murphy JG, Torsher LC, Dunn WF. Simulation medicine in intensive care and coronary care education. J Crit Care. 2007;22(1):51–5.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Bion J, Heffner J. Challenges in the care of the acutely ill. Lancet. 2004;941(3):970–7.CrossRef
7.
Wong N. Medical education in critical care. J Crit Care. 2005;3(20):270–3.CrossRef
8.
Schroedl CJ, Corbridge TC, Cohen ER, Fakhran SS, Schimmel D, McGaghie WC, et al. Use of simulation-based education to improve resident learning and patient care in the medical intensive care unit: a randomized trial. J Crit Care. 2012;27(219):e7–13.PubMed
9.
Ruesseler M, Weinlich M, Müller MP, Byhahn C, Marzi I, Walcher F. Republished: Simulation training improves ability to manage medical emergencies. Postgrad Med J. 2012;88(1040):312–6.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Ramsingh D, Alexander B, Le K, Williams W, Canales C, Cannesson M. Comparison of the didactic lecture with the simulation/model approach for the teaching of a novel perioperative ultrasound curriculum to anesthesiology residents. J Clin Anesth. 2014;26(6):443–54.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Hallikainen J, Väisänen O, Randell T, Tarkkila P, Rosenberg PH, Niemi-Murola L. Teaching anaesthesia induction to medical students: comparison between full-scale simulation and supervised teaching in the operating theatre. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009;26(2):101–4.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Morgan PJ, Cleave-Hogg D, McIlroy J, Devitt JH. Simulation technology: a comparison of experiential and visual learning for undergraduate medical students. Anesthesiology. 2002;96(1):10–6.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Tan GM, Ti LK, Tan K, Lee T. A comparison of screen-based simulation and conventional lectures for undergraduate teaching of crisis management. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2008;36(4):565–9.PubMed
14.
Levy MM, Dellinger RP, Townsend SR, Linde-Zwirble WT, Marshall JC, Bion J, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(2):367–74.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Wang CL, Schopp JG, Petscavage JM, Paladin AM, Richardson ML, Bush WH. Prospective randomized comparison of standard didactic lecture versus high-fidelity simulation for radiology resident contrast reaction management training. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(6):1288–95.CrossRef
16.
Paskins Z, Peile E. Final year medical students’ views on simulation-based teaching: a comparison with the Best Evidence Medical Education Systematic Review. Med Teacher. 2010;32(7):569–77.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Pilot study comparing simulation-based and didactic lecture-based critical care teaching for final-year medical students
Authors
Orsolya Solymos
Patrick O’Kelly
Criona M. Walshe
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2253
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-015-0109-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Anesthesiology 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Tolerability and performance of BIP endotracheal tubes with noble metal alloy coating – a randomized clinical evaluation study

Research article

Appropriate dose of dexmedetomidine for the prevention of emergence agitation after desflurane anesthesia for tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy in children: up and down sequential allocation

Erratum

Erratum to: Obesity – a risk factor for postoperative complications in general surgery?

Research article

Effect of apoptosis in neural stem cells treated with sevoflurane

Review

Obesity: physiologic changes and implications for preoperative management

Research article

Intraoperative change of lactate level is associated with postoperative outcomes in pediatric cardiac surgery patients: retrospective observational study