Title |
Cadaver-based training is superior to simulation training for cricothyrotomy and tube thoracostomy
|
---|---|
Published in |
Internal and Emergency Medicine, March 2016
|
DOI | 10.1007/s11739-016-1439-1 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
James Kimo Takayesu, David Peak, Dana Stearns |
Abstract |
Emergency medicine (EM) training mandates that residents be able to competently perform low-frequency critical procedures upon graduation. Simulation is the main method of training in addition to clinical patient care. Access to cadaver-based training is limited due to cost and availability. The relative fidelity and perceived value of cadaver-based simulation training is unknown. This pilot study sought to describe the relative value of cadaver training compared to simulation for cricothyrotomy and tube thoracostomy. To perform a pilot study to assess whether there is a significant difference in fidelity and educational experience of cadaver-based training compared to simulation training. To understand how important this difference is in training residents in low-frequency procedures. Twenty-two senior EM residents (PGY3 and 4) who had completed standard simulation training on cricothyrotomy and tube thoracostomy participated in a formalin-fixed cadaver training program. Participants were surveyed on the relative fidelity of the training using a 100 point visual analogue scale (VAS) with 100 defined as equal to performing the procedure on a real patient. Respondents were also asked to estimate how much the cadaveric training improved the comfort level with performing the procedures on a scale between 0 and 100 %. Open-response feedback was also collected. The response rate was 100 % (22/22). The average fidelity of the cadaver versus simulation training was 79.9 ± 7.0 vs. 34.7 ± 13.4 for cricothyrotomy (p < 0.0001) and 86 ± 8.6 vs. 38.4 ± 19.3 for tube thoracostomy (p < 0.0001). Improvement in comfort levels performing procedures after the cadaveric training was rated as 78.5 ± 13.3 for tube thoracostomy and 78.7 ± 14.3 for cricothyrotomy. All respondents felt this difference in fidelity to be important for procedural training with 21/22 respondents specifically citing the importance of superior landmark and tissue fidelity compared to simulation training. Cadaver-based training provides superior landmark and tissue fidelity compared to simulation training and may be a valuable addition to EM residency training for certain low-frequency procedures. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 40% |
United Kingdom | 3 | 30% |
Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Denmark | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 69 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 11 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
Other | 7 | 10% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 7% |
Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
Other | 17 | 24% |
Unknown | 17 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 49% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
Other | 4 | 6% |
Unknown | 21 | 30% |