Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T18:16:46.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulation-based ENT induction: validation of a novel mannequin training model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2019

S Bhalla ,
I Beegun ,
Z Awad  and
N Tolley
S Bhalla*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Imperial College London, UK
I Beegun
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal London Hospital, UK
Z Awad
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Imperial College London, UK
N Tolley
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Imperial College London, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Miss Sanjana Bhalla, Department of Otolaryngology, St Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, LondonW2 1NY, UK E-mail: sbhalla@doctors.org.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To ascertain whether simulation-based teaching is superior to lecture-based teaching for an induction programme using a home-made induction model.

Methods

A simulation-based induction programme was designed and separate lecture-based teaching covering the same content was organised for junior doctors. The junior doctors were asked to complete pre- and post-induction surveys regarding confidence and anxiety levels. The skills taught included microsuction, flexible nasendoscopy, and anterior and posterior nasal packing. Structured interviews were conducted after the programme to gain qualitative data for analysis. The trainees’ knowledge retention was compared using a standardised written assessment one month after the session.

Results

Simulation-based teaching using the induction model was associated with a statistically significant increase in confidence levels and reduction in anxiety levels, and was associated with greater knowledge retention.

Conclusion

A regular simulation induction programme should be introduced using the induction model, as it leads to better knowledge retention and increased confidence levels.

Keywords

Simulation TrainingLecture
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 134 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 74 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Miss S Bhalla takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Simpson, C, Cottam, H, Fitzgerald, JE, Giddings, CE. The European working time directive has a negative impact on surgical training in the UK. Surgeon 2011;9:56–710.1016/j.surge.2010.08.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anwar, M, Irfan, S, Daly, N, Amen, F. EWTD has negative impact on training for surgeons. BMJ 2005;331:147610.1136/bmj.331.7530.1476-aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzgerald, JE, Giddings, CE, Khera, G, Marron, CD. Improving the future of surgical training and education: consensus recommendations from the Association of Surgeons in Training. Int J Surg 2012;10:389–92Google ScholarPubMed
Nguyen, LH, Bank, I, Fisher, R, Mascarella, M, Young, M. Managing the airway catastrophe: longitudinal simulation-based curriculum to teach airway management. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019;48:1010.1186/s40463-019-0332-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenthal, R, Gantert, WA, Hamel, C, Metzger, J, Kocher, T, Vogelbach, P et al. The future of patient safety: surgical trainees accept virtual reality as a new training tool. Patient Saf Surg 2008;2:1610.1186/1754-9493-2-16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steven, RA, Mires, GJ, Lloyd, SK, McAleer, S. An undergraduate otolaryngology curriculum comparison in the United Kingdom using a curriculum evaluation framework. Clin Otolaryngol 2017;42:963–810.1111/coa.12824CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharma, A, Machen, K, Clarke, B, Howard, D. Is undergraduate otorhinolaryngology teaching relevant to junior doctors working in accident and emergency departments? J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:949–5110.1017/S0022215106002246CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, E. Incidence of ENT problems in general practice. J R Soc Med 1979;72:740–210.1177/014107687907201008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, GR, Bacila, IA, Swamy, M. Does current provision of undergraduate education prepare UK medical students in ENT? A systematic literature review. BMJ Open 2016;6:e01005410.1136/bmjopen-2015-010054CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biswas, D, Rafferty, A, Jassar, P. Night emergency cover for ENT in England: a national survey. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:899–90210.1017/S002221510900471XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, ME, Navaratnam, A, Jablenska, L, Dimitriadis, PA, Sharma, R. A randomized controlled trial of simulation-based training for ear, nose, and throat emergencies. Laryngoscope 2015;125:1816–2110.1002/lary.25179CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelfand, DV, Podnos, YD, Wilson, SE, Cooke, J, Williams, RA. Choosing general surgery: insights into career choices of current medical students. Arch Surg 2002;137:941–710.1001/archsurg.137.8.941CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGaghie, WC, Draycott, TJ, Dunn, WF, Lopez, CM, Stefanidis, D. Evaluating the impact of simulation on translational patient outcomes. Simul Healthc 2011;6(suppl):S42–7Google Scholar
Javia, L, Sardesai, MG. Physical models and virtual reality simulators in otolaryngology. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2017;50:875–9110.1016/j.otc.2017.05.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed