Premium
Computer‐assisted teaching of epistaxis management
Author(s) -
Glicksman Jordan T.,
Brandt Michael G.,
Moukarbel Roger V.,
Rotenberg Brian,
Fung Kevin
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
the laryngoscope
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.181
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1531-4995
pISSN - 0023-852X
DOI - 10.1002/lary.20083
Subject(s) - checklist , nasal packing , modality (human–computer interaction) , significant difference , medicine , certification , medical education , randomized controlled trial , computer assisted learning , medical physics , psychology , computer science , mathematics education , surgery , artificial intelligence , political science , law , cognitive psychology
Objectives: To determine whether computer‐assisted learning (CAL) is an effective tool for the instruction of technical skills. Study Design: Prospective blinded randomized‐control trial conducted on a cohort of 47 first‐year medical students. Methods: Students were instructed on two techniques of nasal packing (formal nasal pack and nasal tampon) for the management of epistaxis, using either a standard text‐based article or a novel computer‐based learning module. Students were evaluated on proper nasal packing technique using standardized subjective and objective outcome measures by three board‐certified otolaryngologists. Blind assessments took place prior to and following instruction, using the assigned learning modality. Results: There were 47 participants enrolled in the study. Both groups demonstrated improvement in performance of both packing procedures following training. A significant post‐training difference favoring CAL learners over text‐based learners was observed, using the global assessment of skill for both packing techniques ( P < .001). Additionally, a significant post‐training difference favoring CAL learners over text‐based learners was observed for all checklist items for the tampon pack and five of eight items on the formal pack checklist. The vast majority of students (94.6%) indicated that if given the choice, they would prefer to learn using CAL rather than by using text‐based learning materials. Conclusions: CAL learners demonstrated significantly greater improvement across both subjective and objective outcome measures when compared to the text‐based group. Additionally, students favored learning via the CAL modality, which further suggests that CAL is a valuable means of imparting procedural knowledge to novice medical trainees. Laryngoscope, 119:466–472, 2009