This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, if ultrasound needle-guidance training is included in physician assistant (PA) education it occurs during the clinical year and uses live patients at the bedside. This practice requires learning a highly tactile skill in a high-stress learning environment where mistakes during the learning process will likely result directly in patient discomfort or complication-related injury. Simulation training with formalin-embalmed cadavers can provide realistic training opportunities with no risk to patients. This study examines the effectiveness of integrating simulation training in ultrasound-guided percutaneous cyst drainage into PA education. METHODS: Thirty-seven PA student participants engaged in training activities to learn to use ultrasound to access and drain synthetic cysts embedded within cadaver tissue. Participants were assessed using pre-training and post-training self-confidence questionnaires and objective skills examinations administered by an instructor. RESULTS: Participant self-confidence related to all assessed aspects of performing the procedure significantly increased after training ( P < 0.0001). Only 2 participants were unable to successfully pass the skills assessment. Participants required 1.9 needle sticks on average to complete the procedure successfully in an average time of 143 seconds. DISCUSSION: Simulation training using synthetic cysts and formalin-embalmed cadavers provides PA students with a realistic and low-stress learning environment in which to develop the complex tactile skills needed to successfully guide a needle with ultrasound while performing a clinical procedure. Training sessions like this should be integrated into PA education to allow students to safely develop the skills and confidence they need to perform ultrasound-guided procedures on live patients and minimize risk of adverse outcomes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Piburn et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: