• T Ott, I Schmidtmann, T Limbach, P F Gottschling, H Buggenhagen, S Kurz, and G Pestel.
• Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Deutschland. ottth@uni-mainz.de.
• Anaesthesist. 2016 Nov 1; 65 (11): 822-831.

BackgroundSimulation-based training (SBT) has developed into an established method of medical training. Studies focusing on the education of medical students have used simulation as an evaluation tool for defined skills. A small number of studies provide evidence that SBT improves medical students' skills in the clinical setting. Moreover, they were strictly limited to a few areas, such as the diagnosis of heart murmurs or the correct application of cricoid pressure. Other studies could not prove adequate transferability from the skills gained in SBT to the patient site. Whether SBT has an effect on medical students' skills in anesthesiology in the clinical setting is controversial. To explore this issue, we designed a prospective, randomized, single-blind trial that was integrated into the undergraduate anesthesiology curriculum of our department during the second year of the clinical phase of medical school.ObjectivesThis study intended to explore the effect of SBT on medical students within the mandatory undergraduate anesthesiology curriculum of our department in the operating room with respect to basic skills in anesthesiology.Materials And MethodsAfter obtaining ethical approval, the participating students of the third clinical semester were randomized into two groups: the SIM-OR group was trained by a 225 min long SBT in basic skills in anesthesiology before attending the operating room (OR) apprenticeship. The OR-SIM group was trained after the operating room apprenticeship by SBT. During SBT the students were trained in five clinical skills detailed below. Further, two clinical scenarios were simulated using a full-scale simulator. The students had to prepare the patient and perform induction of anesthesia, including bag-mask ventilation after induction in scenario 1 and rapid sequence induction in scenario 2. Using the five-point Likert scale, five defined skills were evaluated at defined time points during the study period. 1) application of the safety checklist, 2) application of basic patient monitoring, 3) establishment of intravenous access, 4) bag-and-mask ventilation, and 5) adjustment of ventilatory parameters after the patients' airways were secured. A cumulative score of 5 points was defined as the best and a cumulative score of 25 as the worst rating for a defined time point. The primary endpoint was the cumulative score after day 1 in the operating room apprenticeship and the difference in cumulative scores from days 1 to 4. Our hypothesis was that the SIM-OR group would achieve a better score after day 1 in the operating room apprenticeship and would gain a larger increase in score from day 1 to day 4 than the OR-SIM group.Results73 students were allocated to the OR-SIM group and 70 students to the SIM-OR group. There was no significant difference between the two groups after day 1 of the operating room apprenticeship and no difference in increase of the cumulative score from day 1 to day 4 (median of cumulative score on day 1: 'SIM-OR' 11.2 points vs. 'OR-SIM' 14.6 points; p = 0.067; median of difference from day 1 to day 4: 'SIM-OR' -3.7 vs. 'OR-SIM' -6.4; p = 0.110).ConclusionWith the methods applied, this study could not prove that 225 min of SBT before the operating room apprenticeship increased the medical students' clinical skills as evaluated in the operating room. Secondary endpoints indicate that medical students have better clinical skills at the end of the entire curriculum when they have been trained through SBT before the operating room apprenticeship. However, the authors believe that simulator training has a positive impact on students' acquisition of procedural and patient safety skills, even if the methods applied in this study may not mirror this aspect sufficiently.

26 keywords...

hide…