BACKGROUND:The use of ultrasound(US)within healthcare has inspired the development of new US technology.There have been few studies comparing the use of handheld US to standard US for medical education.This research a...BACKGROUND:The use of ultrasound(US)within healthcare has inspired the development of new US technology.There have been few studies comparing the use of handheld US to standard US for medical education.This research aims to determine whether a handheld US device can provide a comparable primary learning experience to that of a standard US machine.METHODS:Over two days of instruction,participants were taught and evaluated on core US fundamentals.The standard group received instruction on standard US machines,while the handheld group received instruction on handheld US devices.Participants completed a qualitative survey regarding their experience.Six hundred and four images were obtained and graded by two emergency medicine physicians.RESULTS:A total of 119 Swiss medical students were enrolled in our study.There was no statistically significant difference in the US assessment measurements,except for faster endpoint septal separation(EPSS)vascular setup time in the handheld group(P=0.001).There was no statistically significant difference in participants’perceived difficulty of US learning(P=0.198),comfort level(P=0.188),or self-estimated capability to perform US in the future(P=0.442).There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of correctly obtained images(P=0.211)or images that were clinically useful(P=0.256).The median quality score of images obtained by the standard group was eight compared to seven in handheld group(P<0.01).CONCLUSION:Our data suggest a handheld US machine can perform as well as a standard US machine as an educational tool despite sacrifices in image quality.展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND:The use of ultrasound(US)within healthcare has inspired the development of new US technology.There have been few studies comparing the use of handheld US to standard US for medical education.This research aims to determine whether a handheld US device can provide a comparable primary learning experience to that of a standard US machine.METHODS:Over two days of instruction,participants were taught and evaluated on core US fundamentals.The standard group received instruction on standard US machines,while the handheld group received instruction on handheld US devices.Participants completed a qualitative survey regarding their experience.Six hundred and four images were obtained and graded by two emergency medicine physicians.RESULTS:A total of 119 Swiss medical students were enrolled in our study.There was no statistically significant difference in the US assessment measurements,except for faster endpoint septal separation(EPSS)vascular setup time in the handheld group(P=0.001).There was no statistically significant difference in participants’perceived difficulty of US learning(P=0.198),comfort level(P=0.188),or self-estimated capability to perform US in the future(P=0.442).There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of correctly obtained images(P=0.211)or images that were clinically useful(P=0.256).The median quality score of images obtained by the standard group was eight compared to seven in handheld group(P<0.01).CONCLUSION:Our data suggest a handheld US machine can perform as well as a standard US machine as an educational tool despite sacrifices in image quality.
