Supplementing a Traditional Human Gross Anatomy Course with Ultrasound Training

Abstract

Advances in scientific knowledge and advances in treatments and diagnostic tools has placed an increase in demand with regard to basic science and clinical skills training in medical school. Ultrasound imaging has been used routinely in emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynecology and other disciplines. As technology advances and equipment costs decline, there is an increasing demand to use this technology. The Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine (PCOM) chose to incorporate ultrasound technology into its medical school curriculum. To facilitate training, SonoSim Ultrasound Training Solution was chosen. This program provides a course library that reviews basic anatomy, ultrasound images and ultrasound techniques. A Mastery test is available to assess student learning. The simulator includes real ultrasound images viewed on the student's laptop. Images are manipulated using a probe attached to the USB port. The program allows for adjustment of standard features of an ultrasound machine. The anatomy course at PCOM is divided into four sections: Back and upper limb; lower limb and thorax; abdomen and pelvis; head and neck. Ultrasound workshops were chosen to complement the anatomy: Fundamentals of Ultrasound and Shoulder; Knee and Heart; GI tract and Female Pelvis; Cerebrovascular and Thyroid. Students were assigned the Anatomy and Physiology Courses from the SonoSim library and required to pass the Mastery Test ( <75%) prior to attending the workshops. Workshops were scheduled for 1 hour during which students used the simulator to view ultrasound images. Images, annotations or measurements taken using the calipers were saved to their account. The instructor reviewed all Mastery Test scores, images and annotations using the Performance Tracker. To improve the quality of ultrasound training, students were asked to complete a survey at the end of the course. The survey was anonymous and no personal information was collected. Forty‐three percent of the class completed the survey. A majority of the students were satisfied with the Course Library and the Simulations (70% and 66%, respectively). The Mastery Tests were considered difficult by 70% of the class which may have influenced their satisfaction with the course. Only 31% of the students felt they understood the anatomy in the ultrasound images with 89% of the students relying on the probe guides in the program to obtain the images required. The students felt this training would benefit them as future physicians (55%) and helped them understand the general anatomy (61%). Based on student feedback, there are several opportunities to improve ultrasound training. Additional guidance in understanding the anatomy of the ultrasound images is in development. Since the Fundamentals of Ultrasound was the least favorite workshop (30%) students will be given more time to become familiar with the simulator. While a majority of the students (59%) felt the 8 workshops were an appropriate number for the course, the addition of clinical procedures such as subclavian catheterization and FAST exams are being considered. It will be several years before we can assess the impact of ultrasound training on clinical skills. This student feedback has provided us with valuable insight to improve the quality of ultrasound training in our Gross Anatomy Course.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.