Quasi-experimental study improves auscultation skills in third-year medical students, suggesting simulation training's efficacy.
Introduction: Auscultation proficiency remains suboptimal among healthcare professionals, particularly in resource-limited countries. Simulation-based training is a promising measure to address this gap by offering a safe and controlled environment. This quasi-experimental study aimed to assess the efficacy of Student Auscultation Manikin II® (SAM II®)-based training and to determine the influential factors in our academic setting. Methods: A total of 370 third-year medical students received a single 4-hour SAM II®-based training commenced with clinical rotations. To evaluate student’s performance, a test comprising 16 sounds and diagnoses was conducted at three points in time: prior to, at the end of, and at a short interval after the training. Multivariable linear regression models with intervention as a dummy variable were used to examine whether faculty qualifications and prior clinical exposure were associated with outcomes. Results: SAM II®-based training immediately improved student's heart and lung auscultation performance with statistical significance (Median [IQR]: 5 [4-6] vs. 4 [3-6], p < 0.001; 5 [4-5] vs. 3 [3-5], p < 0.001, respectively). Retention rates were 96.8% for cardiac and 88.1% for respiratory auscultation, with no significant difference (p = 0.109). Furthermore, our analysis revealed no correlation between their post-training competence, and educators’ qualifications or students' prior exposure to clinical conditions. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrated the immediate efficacy of part-task trainers in enhancing and maintaining auscultation skills over short periods. Clinical faculties with adequate simulation training can instruct MS-3s as effectively as simulation experts. Nevertheless, it is imperative to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of simulator quality to ensure alignment with the learning objectives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Le et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: