Investigating the Skill Development of Medical Students in Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma (FAST) Ultrasound: A Comparative Analysis Across Different Stages of Medical Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) ultrasound (US) is a valuable medical examination used in trauma settings, particularly for rapid responses to events such as natural disasters. Although the efficacy and benefits of FAST in patient care have been extensively studied, there is limited research on training medical students in FAST. Previous studies have found that medical students can proficiently perform a FAST US after two days of training. However, these studies exclusively included first-year medical students without considering variations in their medical knowledge. Particularly, the advantage of medical students having US experience before undergoing FAST training has not been previously examined. OBJECTIVES: Assess the performance and knowledge acquisition of medical students with and without prior US experience after completing a FAST training course. METHODS: The study included a total of 71 students, consisting of 33 males and 38 females, who were between the ages of 18 and 31, with an average age of 24.6 and a standard deviation of 2.4. The inclusion criteria targeted first- and second-year medical school students who participated on a volunteer basis. Students were divided into two groups: group A, consisting of those without prior US experience, and group B, made up of those who had previous US experience. All students completed a pre-training survey to share their comfort and confidence in US use and knowledge. A baseline FAST exam was conducted to establish initial performance. A comprehensive three-hour training session was then provided. Post-training, students performed another FAST exam to assess improvement, followed by a post-training survey to evaluate comfort and confidence. RESULTS: Medical students who had prior experience in the US (group B) performed significantly better (p<0.01) in both the pre- and post-training FAST exams when compared to students without previous US experience. Specifically, in locating the liver, right kidney, hepatorenal recess, and left kidney, as well as detecting fluid accumulation when in a supine position. Additionally, medical students with prior US experience (group B) exhibited higher baseline confidence (p<0.005-p<0.01) in their ability to perform a FAST exam, as indicated by the results of the pre-testing survey. CONCLUSION: Previous experience with US significantly boosted confidence and knowledge gains following FAST training. This emphasizes the value of including US training in medical school programs after earlier exposure, offering evident benefits. The study reveals the unexplored benefit of having prior US experience for medical students undergoing FAST training, thus addressing a previously unexplored area in current research. The conclusions stress the necessity of integrating US training into medical school curricula after initial exposure. This understanding can direct medical educators in refining the education process, enabling students to be better equipped for real-world medical situations involving FAST.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".