The efficacy of artificial skin as a simulationbased training model for intradermal injection
Keywords:
Simulation-based training, Intradermal injection, Experience and skillsAbstract
Background: Simulation-based training is a safe and efficient tool to help residents and medical students gain more experience and skills before operating on real patients. Intradermal injection is frequently performed in dermatology, pediatrics and other departments. Commercial intradermal injection simulator is expensive, therefore we invented an intradermal injection simulator made from affordable local materials. This study assesses the efficiency of this intradermal injection training simulator. Objective: To assess the efficacy of this artificial skin as a simulation-based training model for intradermal injection Materials and Methods: Self-evaluation and satisfaction questionnaires were distributed to participants before and after the intradermal injection simulator workshop. In the questionnaires we addressed statements and asked the participants to check in the box of 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 to 10 referring to completely disagree, strongly disagree, disagree, mildly disagree, minimally disagree, neither agree nor disagree, minimally agree, mildly agree, agree, strongly agree to completely agree, respectively. After the workshop, residents and medical students did an intradermal injection on real patients to assess their skills by a blinded dermatologist. An immediate wheal indicates the correct injection. Results: After the workshop, participants were significantly more prepared and confident administering intradermal drug injection as well as they were more confident that their hands did not shiver while giving injection (p<0.001). Residents and medical students were completely satisfied with the intradermal injection simulator and would recommend intradermal injection simulator to other learners. They completely agreed that the simulator model is a good method to learn drug injection, easy to use and can be applied to patients. All patients (100%) had small wheals after injections which were assessed by a blinded dermatologist. Conclusion: This new simulator model in local intradermal injection training seems to be a simple, effective and affordable tool to aid medical education and help students gain more skills before performing the procedure on real patients. Nevertheless, further studies should be conducted focusing on the clinical usefulness of the simulator with respect to training and patient outcomes.
References
2. Ahn CS, Davis SA, Dabade TS, Williford PM, Feldman SR. Cosmetic procedures performed in the United States: a 16-year analysis. Dermatol Surg. 2013; 39: 1351-9.
3. Group A, Philips R, Kelly E. Cosmetic Dermatology Training in Residency: Results of a Survey from the Residents’ Perspectives. Dermatol Surg. 2012; 38: 1975-80.
4. Freeman SR, Greene RE, Kimball AB, et al. US dermatology residents’ satisfaction with training and mentoring: survey results from the 2005 and 2006 las Vegas dermatology seminars. Arch Dermatol. 2008; 144: 896-900.
5. Freiman A, Barzilai DA, Barankin B, Natsheh A, Shear NH. National appraisal of dermatology residency training a Canadian study. Arch Dermatol. 2005; 141: 1100-4.
6. Reid DC, Kimball AB, Ehrlich A. Medical versus surgical dermatology: how much training do residents receive? Dermatol Surg. 2006; 32: 597.
7. Lee EH, Nehal KS, Dusza SW, Hale EK, Levine VJ. Procedural dermatology training during dermatology residency: a survey of third-year dermatology residents. J AM Acad Dermatol. 2011; 64: 475-83.
8. Owen H. Early use of simulation in medical education. Simul Health. 2012; 7: 102-16.
9. Acton RD. The evolving role of simulation in teaching in undergraduate medical education. Surg Clin N Am. 2015; 95: 739-50.
10. Hammound MM, Nuthalapaty FS, Goepfert AR, et al. To the point: medical education review of the role of simulators in surgical training. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: 338-43.
11. Yang S, Kampp J. Common Dermatologic Procedures. Med Clin North Am. 2015; 99: 1305- 21.
12. Sachdeva AK. Establishment of American College of Surgeons-accredited Education Institutes: the dawn of a new era in surgical education and training. J Surg Educ. 2010; 67: 249-50.
13. Drosdeck J, Carraro E, Arnold M, et al. Porcine wet lab improves surgical skills in third year medical students. J Surg Res. 2013; 184: 19-25.
14. Buckley CE, Kavanagh DO, Traynor O, Neary PC. Is the skillset obtained in surgical simulation transferable to the operating theatre? Am J Surg. 2014; 207: 146-57.
15. Scott DJ, Pugh CM, Ritter EM, et al. New directions in simulation-based surgical education and training: validation and transfer of surgical skills, use of nonsurgeons as faculty, use of simulation to screen and select surgery residents, and long-term follow-up of learners. Surgery. 2011; 149: 735-44.
16. Colt HG, Davoudi M, Murgu S, Zamanian Rohani N. Measuring learning gain during a one-day introductory bronchoscopy course. Surg Endosc. 2011; 25: 207-216.
17. Kolozsvari NO, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Demyttenaere S. Hoover ML. Sim one, do one, teach one: considerations in designing training curricula for surgical simulation. J Surg Educ. 2011; 68: 421-7.
18. Friedell ML. Starting a simulation and skills laboratory: what do I need and what do I want? J Surg Educ. 2010; 67: 112-21.
19. Graziano SC. Randomized surgical training for medical students: resident versus peer-led teaching. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204: 542.e1-4.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
เนื้อหาและข้อมูลในบทความที่ลงตีพิมพ์ในวารสารโรคผิวหนัง ถือเป็นข้อคิดเห็นและความรับผิดชอบของผู้เขียนบทความโดยตรงซึ่งกองบรรณาธิการวารสาร ไม่จำเป็นต้องเห็นด้วย หรือร่วมรับผิดชอบใดๆ
บทความ ข้อมูล เนื้อหา รูปภาพ ฯลฯ ที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์ในวารสารโรคผิวหนัง ถือเป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของวารสารฯ หากบุคคลหรือหน่วยงานใดต้องการนำทั้งหมดหรือส่วนหนึ่งส่วนใดไปเผยแพร่ต่อหรือเพื่อกระทำการใดๆ จะต้องได้รับอนุญาตเป็นลายลักอักษรจากบรรณาธิการวารสารโรคผิวหนังก่อนเท่านั้น
