Zusammenfassung
Ziel: Ultraschall ist eine verbreitete diagnostische Methode. Im Medizinstudium können
z. B. Ultraschall-Anatomie und grundlegende Ultraschalldiagnostik unterrichtet werden.
Einige medizinische Fakultäten haben Ultraschallkurse mit studentischen Tutoren implementiert,
um der wachsenden Nachfrage an Ultraschallausbildung gerecht zu werden. Obwohl dieses
Unterrichtskonzept als praktikabel und gut akzeptiert gilt, gibt es kaum Daten, die
die Effektivität dieser Kurse belegen. Wir haben daher untersucht, ob studentische
Tutoren grundlegende Ultraschallanatomie genauso effektiv unterrichten können wie
Ultraschall-erfahrene Ärzte. Material und Methoden: 50 Medizinstudenten wurden in zwei Gruppen randomisiert. 46 Datensätze konnten ausgewertet
werden. Eine Gruppe wurde von studentischen Tutoren (ST), die andere von einem Ultraschall-erfahrenen
Arzt (UA) unterrichtet. In einem Prä-/Post-Design mussten die Studenten 15 anatomische
Strukturen darstellen. Dazu durften sie in 3 min maximal drei Bilder anfertigen, anschließend
beschrifteten sie die Strukturen, die sie erkannten. Die Bilder wurden von 2 verblindeten
Ultraschall-erfahrenen Ärzten ausgewertet. Eine Abweichung von maximal einer Struktur
in der Verbesserung zwischen Prä- und Post-Test der beiden Gruppen wurde als äquivalent
angesehen. Ergebnisse: Im Prä-Test identifizierten die ST (UA) 1,6 ± 1,0 (2,0 ± 1,1) Strukturen korrekt.
Beide Gruppen verbesserten sich und identifizierten im Post-Test 7,8 ± 2,8 vs. 8,9 ± 2,9
Strukturen (beide p < 0,0001). Im Vergleich waren die Verbesserungen der ST (6,2 ± 2,8
Strukturen) den der UA (6,9 ± 3,2 Strukturen) äquivalent (p < 0,05 im T-Test für Äquivalenz).
Schlussfolgerung: Studentische Tutoren können grundlegende Aspekte der Ultraschallanatomie des Oberbauchs
vergleichbar effektiv unterrichten wie Ultraschall-erfahrene Ärzte.
Abstract
Purpose: Ultrasound is a widely used diagnostic tool. In medical education, it can be used
to teach sonographic anatomy as well as the basics of ultrasound diagnostics. Some
medical schools have begun implementing student tutor-led teaching sessions in sonographic
abdominal anatomy in order to meet the growing demand in ultrasound teaching. However,
while this teaching concept has proven to be feasible and well accepted, there is
limited data regarding its effectiveness. We investigated whether student tutors teach
sonographic anatomy as effectively as faculty staff sonographers. Materials and Methods: 50 medical students were randomly assigned to one of two groups. 46 of these could
be included in the analysis. One group was taught by student tutors (ST) and the other
by a faculty staff sonographer (FS). Using a pre/post-test design, students were required
to locate and label 15 different abdominal structures. They printed out three pictures
in three minutes and subsequently labeled the structures they were able to identify.
The pictures were then rated by two blinded faculty staff sonographers. A mean difference
of one point in the improvement of correctly identified abdominal structures between
the pre-test and post-test among the two groups was regarded as equivalent. Results: In the pre-test, the ST (FS) correctly identified 1.6 ± 1.0 (2.0 ± 1.1) structures.
Both the ST and FS group showed improvement in the post-test, correctly identifying
7.8 ± 2.8 vs. 8.9 ± 2.9 structures, respectively (p < .0001 each). Comparing the improvement
of the ST (6.2 ± 2.8 structures) versus the FS (6.9 ± 3.2) showed equivalent results
between the two groups (p < .05 testing for equivalence). Conclusion: Basic abdominal sonographic anatomy can be taught effectively by student tutors.
Key words
abdomen - head/neck - education
References
1
Learning, training, and teaching ultrasonography – problems and perspectives.
Ultraschall in Med.
2010;
31
85
2
Gritzmann N, Evans D H.
Recent progress in diagnostic ultrasound techniques.
Ultraschall in Med.
2008;
29
320-322
3
Fernandez-Frackelton M, Peterson M, Lewis R J et al.
A bedside ultrasound curriculum for medical students: prospective evaluation of skill
acquisition.
Teach Learn Med.
2007;
19
14-19
4
Hofer M, Schiebel B, Hartwig H G et al.
Innovative course concept for small group teaching in clinical methods. Results of
a longitudinal, 2-cohort study in the setting of the medical didactic pilot project
in Dusseldorf.
Dtsch Med Wochenschr.
2000;
125
717-723
5
Teichgraber U K, Meyer J M, Poulsen Nautrup C et al.
Ultrasound anatomy: a practical teaching system in human gross anatomy.
Med Educ.
1996;
30
296-298
6
Baernstein A, Liss H K, Carney P A et al.
Trends in study methods used in undergraduate medical education research, 1969 – 2007.
Jama.
2007;
298
1038-1045
7
Wood A K, Lublin J R, Hoffmann K L et al.
Alternatives for improving veterinary medical students’ learning of clinical sonography.
Vet Radiol Ultrasound.
2000;
41
433-436
8
Jager K.
Levels of training in diagnostic ultrasound.
Ultraschall in Med.
2002;
23
299-301
9
European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology..
Minimum training recommendations for the practice of medical ultrasound.
Ultraschall in Med.
2006;
27
79-105
10
Grau T, Macken T, Strunk H.
Appendix 13: Intensive care ultrasound – minimum training requirements for the practice
of medical ultrasound in Europe.
Ultraschall in Med.
2009;
30
414-417
11
Syperda V A, Trivedi P N, Melo L C et al.
Ultrasonography in preclinical education: a pilot study.
J Am Osteopath Assoc.
2008;
108
601-605
12
Angtuaco T L, Hopkins R H, DuBose T J et al.
Sonographic physical diagnosis 101: teaching senior medical students basic ultrasound
scanning skills using a compact ultrasound system.
Ultrasound Q.
2007;
23
157-160
13
Arger P H, Schultz S M, Sehgal C M et al.
Teaching medical students diagnostic sonography.
J Ultrasound Med.
2005;
24
1365-1369
14
Yoo M C, Villegas L, Jones D B.
Basic ultrasound curriculum for medical students: validation of content and phantom.
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A.
2004;
14
374-379
15
Heer I M, Middendorf K, Muller-Egloff S et al.
Ultrasound training: the virtual patient.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.
2004;
24
440-444
16
Secomb J.
A systematic review of peer teaching and learning in clinical education.
J Clin Nurs.
2008;
17
703-716
17
Lake D A.
Peer tutoring improves student performance in an advanced physiology course.
Am J Physiol.
1999;
276
S86-S92
18
Kassab S, Abu-Hijleh M F, Al-Shboul Q et al.
Student-led tutorials in problem-based learning: educational outcomes and students’
perceptions.
Med Teach.
2005;
27
521-526
19
Field M, Burke J, Lloyd D et al.
Peer-assisted learning in clinical examination.
Lancet.
2004;
363
490-491
20
Nestel D, Kidd J.
Peer tutoring in patient-centred interviewing skills: experience of a project for
first-year students.
Med Teach.
2003;
25
398-403
21
Haist S A, Wilson J F, Brigham N L et al.
Comparing fourth-year medical students with faculty in the teaching of physical examination
skills to first-year students.
Acad Med.
1998;
73
198-200
22
Weyrich P, Schrauth M, Kraus B et al.
Undergraduate technical skills training guided by student tutors – analysis of tutors’
attitudes, tutees’ acceptance and learning progress in an innovative teaching model.
BMC Med Educ.
2008;
8
18
23
Buckley S, Zamora J.
Effects of participation in a cross year peer tutoring programme in clinical examination
skills on volunteer tutors’ skills and attitudes towards teachers and teaching.
BMC Med Educ.
2007;
7
20
24
Weyrich P, Celebi N, Schrauth M et al.
Peer-assisted versus faculty staff-led skills laboratory training: a randomised controlled
trial.
Med Educ.
2009;
43
113-120
25
Knobe M, Munker R, Sellei R M et al.
Peer teaching: a randomised controlled trial using student-teachers to teach musculoskeletal
ultrasound.
Med Educ.
2009;
44
148-155
26
Worlicek H, Strunk H, Simanowski J.
3-dimensional concept for abdominal ultrasonography. Consensus of the Section of Internal
Medicine, Radiology and Surgery of the German Society of Ultrasonography.
Ultraschall in Med.
2003;
24
129-131
27 Wellek S. Testing Statistical Hypotheses of Equivalence. Chapman and Hall; 2003
28
Shrout P E, Fleiss J L.
Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.
Psychol Bull.
1979;
86
420-428
29
Sobral D T.
Cross-year peer tutoring experience in a medical school: conditions and outcomes for
student tutors.
Med Educ.
2002;
36
1064-1070
30
Issenberg S B, McGaghie W C, Petrusa E R et al.
Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning:
a BEME systematic review.
Med Teach.
2005;
27
10-28
Dr. Nora Celebi
University of Tuebingen, Department Internal Medicine IV
Otfried-Müller-Str. 10
72076 Tübingen
Germany
Telefon: ++ 49/70 71/2 98 27 11
Fax: ++ 49/74 72/92 56 44
eMail: Nora.Celebi@med.uni-tuebingen.de