AIRR - ANZCA Institutional Research Repository
Skip navigation
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11055/631
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBarrington, MJen_US
dc.contributor.authorViero, Len_US
dc.contributor.authorKluger, Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorClarke, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorIvanusic, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorWong, DMen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-19T01:30:19Z-
dc.date.available2018-07-19T01:30:19Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citation41(6)667-670en_US
dc.identifier.issn1098-7339en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11055/631-
dc.description.abstractBackground and Objectives The objectives of this study were to determine the learning curve for capturing sonograms and identifying anatomical structures relevant to ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block and to determine if massed was superior to distributed practice for this core sonographic skill. Methods Ten University of Melbourne, third- or fourth-year Doctor of Medicine students were randomized to massed or distributed practice. Participants performed 15 supervised learning sessions comprising scanning followed by feedback. A “sonographic proficiency score” was calculated by summing parameters in acquiring and interpreting the sonogram, and identifying relevant anatomical structures. Results Between the 1st and 10th sessions, the proficiency scores increased (P = 0.043). Except for one, all participants had relatively rapid increases in their “sonographic proficiency scores.” There was no difference in proficiency scores between the 15th and 10th sessions (P > 0.05). There was no difference in scores between groups for the first session, (P = 0.40), 15th session (P = 0.10), or at any time. There was no difference in the slope of the increase in “sonographic proficiency score” over the first 10 scanning sessions between groups [massed, 1.1 (0.32); distributed, 0.90 (0.15); P = 0.22) presented as mean (SD)]. The 95% confidence interval for the difference in slopes between massed and distributed groups was −0.15 to 0.56. Conclusions The proficiency of participants in capturing sonograms and identifying anatomical structures improved significantly over 8 to 10 learning sessions. Because of sample size issues, we cannot make a firm conclusion regarding massed versus distributed practice for this core sonographic skill.en_US
dc.subjectsonographic skillsen_US
dc.subjectultrasounden_US
dc.subjectAxillary Brachial Plexus Blocken_US
dc.subjectlearningen_US
dc.titleDetermining the Learning Curve for Acquiring Core Sonographic Skills for Ultrasound-Guided Axillary Brachial Plexus Blocken_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.type.contentTexten_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleRegional Anesthesia and Pain Medicineen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/AAP.0000000000000487en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Anaesthesia and Acute Pain Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourneen_US
dc.description.affiliatesMelbourne Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciencesen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Anatomy and Neurosciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.type.studyortrialCase Control Studiesen_US
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
Appears in Collections:Scholarly and Clinical
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

20
checked on Mar 28, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.