Research: Emergency medicine residents’ acquisition of point-of-care ultrasound knowledge and their satisfaction with the flipped classroom andragogy

Abstract

Background: One of the traditional approaches for knowledge transfer in medical education is through face-to-face (F2F) teaching. We aimed to evaluate the acquisition of knowledge about point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and learner’s satisfaction with the flipped classroom (FC) teaching approach. Methods: This was a prospective, mixed-method, crossover study and included 29 emergency medicine (EM) residents in current training program. Over a period of three months, each resident was exposed to F2F and FC teaching models in a crossover manner. There was a multiple-choice questions (MCQ) test before and after each educational intervention (F2F & FC). Two months after each educational intervention a final MCQ test was administered to assess the retention of knowledge between the two approaches. After each educational approach feedback was sought from a selected group of residents concerning the acceptability of the two educational approaches through a semi structured interview. Results: A total of 29 EM residents participated in this study. The numbers of residents by year of post-graduation training were seven (24.14%) PGY-1, eight (27.59%) PGY-2, six (20.69%) PGY-3, and eight (27.59%) PGY-4. The baseline mean score was 15.82 using MCQs test mean scores. For the face-to-face teaching model, the difference between pre and post-intervention scores was 2.7 (95% CI 2.1 to 3.3, p=0.001); whereas, for the flipped classroom teaching model, the difference was 3.93 (95% CI 3.2 to 4.5, p= 0.001). At two months post-intervention, for face-to-face teaching model, the MCQ assessment showed an increase of 1.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.2, p= 0.001) mean scores when compared to the pre-intervention mean scores; whereas, for the flipped classroom model this difference was significantly higher, recorded as 4.48 (95% CI 3.7 to 5.1, p= 0.001). Finally, the difference between mean scores for F2F and FC teaching models was 2.75 (95% CI 1.87 to 3.64, p=0.001) at two months post-intervention. Overall, the participants expressed a preference for the FC teaching methodology. Conclusion: Both F2F and FC teaching methods resulted in significant and sustained improvements in POCUS knowledge base. The FC teaching method accomplished higher test scores than the F2F teaching method both at the end of the teaching and after two months of completing the educational program.