• Juhana Hallikainen, Olli Väisänen, Tarja Randell, Pekka Tarkkila, Per H Rosenberg, and Leila Niemi-Murola.
• Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. juhana.hallikainen@hus.fi
• Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009 Feb 1; 26 (2): 101-4.

Background And ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of teaching of general anaesthesia induction to medical students using either full-scale simulation or traditional supervised teaching with patients in the operating theatre.MethodsForty-six fourth year students attending their course in anaesthesiology were enrolled. The students were randomly assigned to two groups. The simulation group received training in the simulator. The traditional training group was supervised by a senior consultant anaesthetist. After the training sessions all students were tested in the simulator setting. The test was assessed using a 40-item evaluation list.ResultsThirty-three per cent of students in the traditional group and 87% of the students in the simulation group passed the test. Statistically significant differences were: request of glycopyrrolate (P < 0.001), Sp(O2) monitoring (P < 0.001), used gloves when placing an intravenous cannula (P = 0.012), intubation attempt within 30 s (P < 0.04), anaesthesia gas set at MAC at least 1 (P < 0.04), instructed anaesthetic nurse to keep Sp(O2) at least 95% (P < 0.05), keep MAP at least 60 mmHg (P < 0.05), keep heart rate more than 50 beats per minute (P < 0.002), keep end-tidal p(CO2) 4-5.5 kPa (P < 0.002).ConclusionThe simulation group performed better in 25% of the tasks and similarly in the others compared with the traditional teaching group. With the same time and amount of teaching personnel we trained five or six students in the simulator compared with one student in the operating theatre. Further research will reveal whether these promising results with simulation may be applied more generally in anaesthesiology teaching to medical students.

10 keywords...

hide…