Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction: Tracheal intubation is a core airway-management procedure, but undergraduate medical students often have limited opportunities to practice on real patients. This study evaluated the effect of a single procedural simulation session on medical students’ knowledge, self-assessed technical preparedness, and confidence, while describing a structured in-procedure formative assessment framework. Methods This prospective before-and-after study included fourth-year undergraduate medical students with no previous intubation experience at a university simulation center. The intervention consisted of a 60-minute low-fidelity procedural simulation session featuring a theoretical briefing, instructor demonstration, supervised hands-on practice, in-procedure formative assessment using a standardized checklist, and debriefing. Participants completed pre- and post-session questionnaires. Paired comparisons were performed using the paired Student’s t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results Twenty-eight students completed the study. Following the session, significant increases were observed in mean self-assessed technical preparedness (from 2.4 ± 0.8 to 4.4 ± 0.6, p < 0.001) and confidence (from 2.3 ± 0.9 to 4.3 ± 0.6, p < 0.001). Knowledge of complications improved (2.3 ± 0.9 vs. 4.2 ± 0.7, p < 0.001), while perceived difficulty decreased (4.1 ± 0.7 vs. 2.2 ± 0.6, p < 0.001). Tube insertion and laryngoscope manipulation were the most common challenges. The simulation was rated as highly realistic (4.7 ± 0.5), with 93% of students finding it very useful and 100% recommending its curriculum integration. Conclusions A single structured procedural simulation session was associated with significant short-term improvements in medical students’ knowledge, confidence, and preparedness for tracheal intubation. A standardized in-procedure formative assessment checklist may strengthen feedback quality and support competency-based training.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aouadi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: