Evaluation of a Novel Method of Teaching Endobronchial Ultrasound: Physician- Versus Respiratory Therapist-Proctored Simulation Training

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorStather, David Ryan
dc.contributor.authorChee, Alex
dc.contributor.authorMacEachern, Paul
dc.contributor.authorDumoulin, Elaine
dc.contributor.authorHergott, Christopher A
dc.contributor.authorGelberg, Jacob
dc.contributor.authorScott, Sandra D
dc.contributor.authorDe Guzman, Sylvia
dc.contributor.authorTremblay, Alain
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-27T11:42:37Z
dc.date.available2018-09-27T11:42:37Z
dc.date.issued2013-01-01
dc.date.updated2018-09-27T11:42:37Z
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Computer endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) simulators have been demonstrated to improve trainee procedural skills before attempting to perform EBUS procedures on patients.OBJECTIVE: To compare EBUS performance following training with computer simulation proctored by EBUS-trained respiratory therapists versus the same simulation training proctored by an interventional respirologist.METHODS: The present analysis was a prospective study of respiratory medicine trainees learning EBUS. Two cohorts of trainees were evaluated using a previously validated method using simulated cases with performance metrics measured by the simulator. Group 1 underwent EBUS training by performing 15 procedures on an EBUS simulator (n=4) proctored by an interventional respirologist. Group 2 received identical training proctored by a respiratory therapist with special training in EBUS (n=10).RESULTS: No significant differences between group 1 and group 2 were apparent for the primary outcome measures of total procedure time (15.15±1.34 min versus 14.78±2.88 min; P=0.816), the percentage of lymph nodes successfully identified (88.8±5.4 versus 80.91±8.9; P=0.092) or the percentage of successful biopsies (100.0±0.0 versus 98.75±3.95; P=0.549). The learning curves were similar between groups, and did not show an obvious plateau after 19 simulated procedures in either group.DISCUSSION: Acquisition of basic EBUS technical skills can be achieved using computer EBUS simulation proctored by specially trained respiratory therapists or by an interventional respirologist. There appeared to be no significant advantage to having an interventional respirologist proctor the computer EBUS simulation.
dc.description.versionPeer Reviewed
dc.identifier.citationDavid Ryan Stather, Alex Chee, Paul MacEachern, et al., “Evaluation of a Novel Method of Teaching Endobronchial Ultrasound: Physician- Versus Respiratory Therapist-Proctored Simulation Training,” Canadian Respiratory Journal, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 243-247, 2013. doi:10.1155/2013/846769
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1155/2013/846769
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1880/108277
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/44321
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderCopyright © 2013 Hindawi Publishing Corporation. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
dc.titleEvaluation of a Novel Method of Teaching Endobronchial Ultrasound: Physician- Versus Respiratory Therapist-Proctored Simulation Training
dc.typeJournal Article
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
CRJ.2013.846769.pdf
Size:
946.93 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
0 B
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Open Access Publications