Study demonstrates the effectiveness of a low-cost venipuncture simulator in medical education, indicating broad applicability.
Venipuncture is a fundamental clinical skill that requires repeated practice in a safe learning environment before being performed on patients. However, commercial venipuncture simulators are often expensive and not always available in sufficient numbers for repeated student training. This study aimed to design, manufacture, and evaluate a low-cost, reusable venipuncture training model for medical education. The simulator was developed using a silicone-based soft-tissue model with embedded silicone tubing simulating superficial veins at different depths. A passive hydrostatic pressure system was used to provide visual feedback during successful venipuncture. The model was manufactured using a 3D-printed mold, platinum-cure silicone, silicone tubing, and a porous support layer to improve durability and fluid absorption. The total material cost per model was approximately 4-5 EUR. The model was used in a practical training session with 50 medical students as part of a scheduled educational activity. Following the training, participants were invited to complete a voluntary and anonymous questionnaire designed to evaluate the perceived realism, usability, and educational value of the model. The questionnaire consisted of 10 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The instrument was developed specifically for this study and was not previously validated; therefore, the results should be interpreted as exploratory measures of user perception. Students reported high satisfaction across all evaluated categories, particularly ease of use, the ability to perform repeated venipuncture, and the visual feedback system. This low-cost, in-house manufactured venipuncture simulator provides a practical and sustainable solution for procedural training. Its affordability, reusability, and ease of manufacturing make it suitable for widespread use in medical education, particularly in settings with limited access to commercial simulation equipment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tserovski et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: