Which Model is Better to Teach How to Perform Tube Thoracostomy: Synthetic, Cadaver, or Animal?

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_MEYER-PFLUG_Which_Model_is_Better_to_Teach_How_to_2022.PDF (1.09 MB)
Citações na Scopus
0
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2022
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
Autores
Citação
JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, v.278, p.240-246, 2022
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Introduction: The lack of standardized skill training reported by medical students in performing tube thoracostomies may be associated with higher complications. The ideal training model is yet to be determined. This study sought to evaluate three different models. Methods: Between 2015 and 2017, 204 last-year medical students of Universidade de Sao Paulo with no prior training in tube thoracostomy were randomized into three groups: cadaver, pig, and synthetic models. All groups performed 1-d tube thoracostomy hands-on training and a 40-min theoretical class. The knowledge acquisition was measured by a comparison between a theoretical test before and 3 wk after the class, and the skills improvement was evaluated by a comparison between the skills test on the same day of the hands-on training and another after 24 wk (the retention skill test). A questionnaire was submitted to evaluate their satisfaction rate and self-reported confidence, as per a Likert scale. Results: The theoretical post-test score was higher compared to the pretest score in all groups (P < 0.001). The retention skills test in the cadaver and synthetic groups decreased compared to the skills test (P = 0.01 and P = 0.007, respectively). There was no difference between the groups either in the theoretical test or in the skills test. Student satisfaction was higher in the cadaver and pig groups. The confidence perception increased in all groups after the training. Conclusions: The models used for tube thoracostomy training appear to have a similar impact on skills retention, knowledge acquisition, and confidence. Although the satisfaction rate is lower for the synthetic model, it has no biological risk or ethical issues and is more feasible. (C) 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Palavras-chave
Animal model, Cadaver, Medical education, Medical student, Simulation training, Skill, Synthetic model, Thoracostomy
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/50369
Referências
  1. Brasil. Casa Civil. Subchefia para Assuntos Juridicos, 2008, DIARIO OFICIAL UNIAO, V1, P1
  2. Brasil. Ministerio da Cie^ncia Tecnologia e Inovac ao. Conselho Nacional de Controle de Experimentac a~o Animal (CONCEA), 2013, BRASILIADF DIARIO OF, P1
  3. Tube MIC, 2016, ACTA CIR BRAS, V31, P353, DOI 10.1590/S0102-865020160050000010
  4. Davis JS, 2013, J SURG EDUC, V70, P334, DOI 10.1016/j.jsurg.2012.12.005
  5. Elsayed H, 2010, INTERACT CARDIOV TH, V11, P745, DOI 10.1510/icvts.2010.243196
  6. Faul F, 2009, BEHAV RES METHODS, V41, P1149, DOI 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
  7. Friedrich M, 2018, GMS J MED EDU, V35, DOI 10.3205/zma001194
  8. Garcia DFV, 2016, THESIS U SAO PAULO S
  9. Ghasemi A, 2012, INT J ENDOCRINOL MET, V10, P486, DOI 10.5812/ijem.3505
  10. Griffiths JR, 2005, POSTGRAD MED J, V81, P456, DOI 10.1136/pgmj.2004.024752
  11. Guimara~es LSP, 2012, REV HCPA FM U FED RI, V32, P503
  12. Hart Danielle, 2016, J Spec Oper Med, V16, P44
  13. Homan C S, 1994, Acad Emerg Med, V1, P382
  14. Hutton IA, 2008, INTERN MED J, V38, P887, DOI 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2007.01586.x
  15. Jamieson S, 2004, MED EDUC, V38, P1217, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x
  16. Laws D, 2003, THORAX, V58, pII53, DOI 10.1136/thorax.58.suppl_2.ii53
  17. Liddell MJ, 2002, MED EDUC, V36, P1035, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01306.x
  18. Lynn Valerie A., 2010, Medical Reference Services Quarterly, V29, P121, DOI 10.1080/02763861003723176
  19. Marques Filho José, 2012, Rev. Col. Bras. Cir., V39, P74
  20. Menegozzo CAM, 2019, INT J SURG, V68, P85, DOI 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.06.012
  21. Patel M, 2008, NEW ZEAL MED J, V121, P37
  22. Proano L, 2002, J EMERG MED, V23, P89, DOI 10.1016/S0736-4679(02)00468-7
  23. Scally CP, 2016, SURG CLIN N AM, V96, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.suc.2015.08.007
  24. Seiden SC, 2006, ARCH SURG-CHICAGO, V141, P931, DOI 10.1001/archsurg.141.9.931
  25. Seo HS, 2017, BMC MED EDUC, V17, DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1106-x
  26. Shapiro C, 2015, J MICROBIOL BIOL EDU, V16, P186, DOI 10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.1045
  27. Tang ATM, 2002, J EVAL CLIN PRACT, V8, P333, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2002.00339.x
  28. Tatli O, 2017, SAUDI MED J, V38, P1007, DOI 10.15537/smj.2017.10.21021
  29. Tavakol M, 2008, J SURG EDUC, V65, P77, DOI 10.1016/j.jsurg.2007.11.003
  30. Williamson JA, 2014, ATLA-ALTERN LAB ANIM, V42, P201, DOI 10.1177/026119291404200307

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MCG
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HU
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/08
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/26