• Paul A Olszynski, Tim Harris, Patrick Renihan, Marcel D'Eon, and Kalyani Premkumar.
• *College of Medicine.
• Can J Emerg Med. 2016 May 1; 18 (3): 183-90.

ObjectivesWe sought to compare two ultrasound simulation interventions used during critical care simulation. The primary outcome was trainee and instructor preference for either intervention. Secondary outcomes included the identification of strengths and weaknesses of each intervention as well as overall merits of ultrasound simulation during high-fidelity, critical care simulation. The populations of interest included emergency medicine trainees and physicians.MethodsThis was a randomized crossover study with two ultrasound simulation interventions. 25 trainees and eight emergency physician instructors participated in critical-care simulation sessions. Instructors were involved in session debriefing and feedback. Pre- and post-intervention responses were analyzed for statistically significant differences using t test analyses. Qualitative data underwent thematic analysis and triangulation.ResultsBoth trainees and instructors deemed ultrasound simulation valuable by allowing trainees to demonstrate knowledge of indications, correct image interpretation, and clinical integration (p<0.05). Trainees described increased motivation to develop and use ultrasound skills. The edus2 was the preferred intervention, as it enabled functional fidelity and the integration of ultrasound into resuscitation choreography. Instructors preferred the edus2, as it facilitated better assessment of trainees' skills, thus influencing feedback.ConclusionsThese findings support the use of ultrasound simulation during critical care simulations. The increased functional fidelity associated with edus2 suggests that it is the preferred intervention. Further study of the impact on clinical performance is warranted.

19 keywords...

hide…