MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896455182 · doi:10.7759/cureus.3484

Structured, Small-group Hands-on Teaching Sessions Improve Pre-clerk Knowledge and Confidence in Point-of-care Ultrasound Use and Interpretation

2018· article· en· W2896455182 on OpenAlexaff
Amir H. Safavi, Qian Shi, Maylynn Ding, Maryam Kotait, Jason Profetto, Vian Mohialdin, Ari Shali

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCurriculumSession (web analytics)Medical educationPresentation (obstetrics)Point of care ultrasoundPreceptorPsychologySurgeryPedagogyUltrasoundRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Many undergraduate medical education (UME) programs have begun adopting point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) curricula, reflecting the increasing ubiquity of this technique across medical specialties. The structures of international PoCUS curricula have been extensively studied. However, the efficacy of these curricula to increase knowledge and confidence in PoCUS is less well-studied. We investigated whether a structured, small-group PoCUS teaching session consisting of pre-defined learning objectives, an introductory presentation, and a mandatory hands-on scanning component would increase pre-clerk knowledge of and confidence in PoCUS theory, use, and interpretation. Methods A pre-post study was designed to assess changes in pre-clerk knowledge and confidence in PoCUS theory, use, and interpretation. Pre-clerks were recruited from the Hamilton campus of the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University. Pre-clerks were organized into four groups, with an average group size of seven learners. Two preceptors each taught two groups. Sessions included an introductory PowerPoint presentation and one-on-one preceptor-guided practice in identifying abdominal and genitourinary structures using PoCUS. Student responses on pre- and post-intervention surveys were analyzed to identify changes in knowledge and confidence. Student satisfaction with the teaching session was assessed from self-reported levels of agreement with satisfaction statements. The strengths and areas of improvement for the teaching sessions were identified from open-ended survey responses. Results Data from 27 students indicated a significant improvement in knowledge test scores (p < .05), with no significant differences between groups (F(3,23) = 0.64, p = n.s.) or between students with different preceptors (p = n.s.). Students' confidence in PoCUS use and interpretation improved significantly (p < .05 for both), with no significant differences between groups (F(3,23) = 0.70, p = n.s. and F(3,23) = 0.32, p = n.s., respectively) or between students with different preceptors (p = n.s. for both). Improvements in knowledge of and confidence in PoCUS use were significantly correlated (r = .44, p < .05). All of the students agreed that they liked the instruction, content, and structure of the teaching session. The most frequently cited strengths of the teaching sessions were the mandatory individual practice time per student, individualized instruction from and interactions with preceptors, and the small group structure of the sessions. Conclusion This study provides novel evidence that a structured, small-group teaching session featuring a didactic presentation, defined learning objectives, and mandatory hands-on learning can effectively teach introductory PoCUS knowledge and skills to pre-clerks and increase student confidence. Future studies will investigate the retention and application of PoCUS knowledge and skill throughout clerkship and early residency training to determine if this teaching model can facilitate longitudinal PoCUS learning and competency as well as improved diagnostic capabilities as students advance through undergraduate medical training.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207