Improving the quality of transvaginal ultrasound scan by simulation training for general practice residents

M Le Lous; N De Chanaud; A Bourret; M V Senat; C Colmant; P Jaury; A Tesnière; V Tsatsaris

doi:10.1186/s41077-017-0056-z

Improving the quality of transvaginal ultrasound scan by simulation training for general practice residents

Adv Simul (Lond). 2017 Nov 21:2:24. doi: 10.1186/s41077-017-0056-z. eCollection 2017.

Authors

M Le Lous^{1

2

3}, N De Chanaud^{2

4}, A Bourret¹, M V Senat⁵, C Colmant⁵, P Jaury⁴, A Tesnière^{2

6}, V Tsatsaris^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ 1Department of Gynecology Obstetrics and Reproductive Medicine, AP-HP, Cochin Port Royal Hospital, University of Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
² 2Simulation Department iLumens, Sorbonne Paris Cité University, Paris, France.
³ 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Rennes, Rennes, France.
⁴ 4General Practice Department, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.
⁵ 5Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, AP-HP, Bicêtre Hospital, University of Paris-Sud, Orsay, France.
⁶ 6Department of Anesthesia, AP-HP, Cochin Port Royal Hospital, University of Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.

Abstract

Background: Ultrasonography (US) is an essential tool for the diagnosis of acute gynecological conditions. General practice (GP) residents are involved in the first-line management of gynecologic emergencies. They are not familiar with US equipment. Initial training on simulators was conducted.The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of simulation-based training on the quality of the sonographic images achieved by GP residents 2 months after the simulation training versus clinical training alone.

Methods: Young GP residents assigned to emergency gynecology departments were invited to a one-day simulation-based US training session. A prospective controlled trial aiming to assess the impact of such training on TVS (transvaginal ultrasound scan) image quality was conducted. The first group included GP residents who attended the simulation training course. The second group included GP residents who did not attend the course. Written consent to participate was obtained from all participants. Images achieved 2 months after the training were scored using standardized quality criteria and compared in both groups. The stress generated by this examination was also assessed with a simple numeric scale.

Results: A total of 137 residents attended the simulation training, 26 consented to participate in the controlled trial. Sonographic image quality was significantly better in the simulation group for the sagittal view of the uterus (3.6 vs 2.7, p = 0.01), for the longitudinal view of the right ovary (2.8 vs 1.4, p = 0.027), and for the Morrison space (1.7 vs 0.4, p = 0.034), but the difference was not significant for the left ovary (2.9 vs 1.7, p = 0.189). The stress generated by TVS after 2 months was not different between the groups (6.0 vs 4.8, p = 0.4).

Conclusion: Simulation-based training improved the quality of pelvic US images in GP residents assessed after 2 months of experience in gynecology compared to clinical training alone.

Keywords: General practice; Gynecology; Medical education; Simulation; Transvaginal ultrasound; Ultrasound simulators.