The acquisition and retention of ECG interpretation skills after a standardized web-based ECG tutorial–a randomised study

BMC Medical Education

Lars Konge¹  Jesper Hastrup Svendsen²  Charlotte Ringsted³  Lars Kayser⁵  Anders Gaardsdal Holst²  Sune Bernd Emil Werner Räder⁴  Signe Rolskov Bojsen¹ 

[1] Centre for Clinical Education, Rigshospitalet, Afsnit 5404, Teilumbygningen, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, 2100, Denmark;Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, 2100, Denmark;Faculty of Health, Aarhus University, Ndr. Ringgade 1, Aarhus C, 8000, Denmark;Department of Cardiology, Hillerød Hospital, Dyrehavevej 29, Hillerød, 3400, Denmark;Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, opg, Copenhagen, CSS, 1014, Denmark

关键词: Retention of skills;    Electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation;    Electrocardiogram (ECG);   

Others  :  1138396
DOI  :  10.1186/s12909-015-0319-0

 received in 2014-12-21, accepted in 2015-02-19,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation is of great importance for patient management. However, medical students frequently lack proficiency in ECG interpretation and rate their ECG training as inadequate.

Our aim was to examine the effect of a standalone web-based ECG tutorial and to assess the retention of skills using multiple follow-up intervals.

Methods

203 medical students were included in the study. All participants completed a pre-test, an ECG tutorial, and a post-test. The participants were also randomised to complete a retention-test after short (2–4 weeks), medium (10–12 weeks), or long (18–20 weeks) follow-up.

Intragroup comparisons of test scores were done using paired-samples t-test. Intergroup comparisons of test scores were performed using independent-samples t-test and ANOVA, whereas demographic data were compared using ANOVA and Chi-squared test.

Results

The overall mean test score improved significantly from 52.7 (SD 16.8) in the pre-test to 68.4 (SD 12.3) in the post-test (p < 0.001). Junior and senior students demonstrated significantly different baseline scores (45.5 vs. 57.8 points; p < 0.001), but showed comparable score gains (16.5 and 15.1 points, respectively; p = 0.48).

All three follow-up groups experienced a decrease in test score between post-test and retention-test: from 67.4 (SD 12.3) to 60.2 (SD 8.3) in the short follow-up group, from 71.4 (SD 12.0) to 60.8 (SD 8.9) in the medium follow-up group, and from 66.1 (SD 12.1) to 58.6 (SD 8.6) in the long follow-up group (p < 0.001 for all). However, there were no significant differences in mean retention-test score between the groups (p = 0.33). Both junior and senior students showed a decline in test score at follow-up (from 62.0 (SD 10.6) to 56.2 (SD 9.8) and from 72.9 (SD 11.4) to 62.5 (SD 6.6), respectively). When comparing the pre-test to retention-test delta scores, junior students had learned significantly more than senior students (junior students improved 10.7 points and senior students improved 4.7 points, p = 0.003).

Conclusion

A standalone web-based ECG tutorial can be an effective means of teaching ECG interpretation skills to medical students. The newly acquired skills are, however, rapidly lost when the intervention is not repeated.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Rolskov Bojsen et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Fisch C: Evolution of the clinical electrocardiogram. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989, 14(5):1127-38.
• [2]Salerno SM, Alguire PC, Waxman HS: Competency in interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiograms: a summary and appraisal of published evidence. Ann Intern Med 2003, 138(9):751-60.
• [3]Trzeciak S, Erickson T, Bunney EB, Sloan EP: Variation in patient management based on ECG interpretation by emergency medicine and internal medicine residents. Am J Emerg Med 2002, 20(3):188-95.
• [4]Jayes RL Jr, Larsen GC, Beshansky JR, D’Agostino RB, Selker HP: Physician electrocardiogram reading in the emergency department–accuracy and effect on triage decisions: findings from a multicenter study. J Gen Intern Med 1992, 7(4):387-92.
• [5]Kadish AH, Buxton AE, Kennedy HL, Knight BP, Mason JW, Schuger CD, et al.: ACC/AHA clinical competence statement on electrocardiography and ambulatory electrocardiography: A report of the ACC/AHA/ACP-ASIM task force on clinical competence (ACC/AHA Committee to develop a clinical competence statement on electrocardiography and ambulatory electrocardiography) endorsed by the International Society for Holter and noninvasive electrocardiology. Circulation 2001, 104(25):3169-78.
• [6]O’Brien KE, Cannarozzi ML, Torre DM, Mechaber AJ, Durning SJ: Training and assessment of ECG interpretation skills: results from the 2005 CDIM survey. Teach Learn Med 2009, 21(2):111-5.
• [7]Lever NA, Larsen PD, Dawes M, Wong A, Harding SA: Are our medical graduates in New Zealand safe and accurate in ECG interpretation? N Z Med J 2009, 122(1292):9-15.
• [8]Berger JS, Eisen L, Nozad V, D’Angelo J, Calderon Y, Brown DL, et al.: Competency in electrocardiogram interpretation among internal medicine and emergency medicine residents. Am J Med 2005, 118(8):873-80.
• [9]Eslava D, Dhillon S, Berger J, Homel P, Bergmann S: Interpretation of electrocardiograms by first-year residents: the need for change. J Electrocardiol 2009, 42(6):693-7.
• [10]Cook DA: Web-based learning: pros, cons and controversies. Clin Med 2007, 7(1):37-42.
• [11]Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM: Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. Jama 2008, 300(10):1181-96.
• [12]Nilsson M, Bolinder G, Held C, Johansson BL, Fors U, Ostergren J: Evaluation of a web-based ECG-interpretation programme for undergraduate medical students. BMC Med Educ 2008, 8:25. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Montassier E, Hardouin JB, Segard J, Batard E, Potel G, Planchon B, Trochu JN, Pottier P: e-Learning versus lecture-based courses in ECG interpretation for undergraduate medical students: a randomized noninferiority study. Eur J Emerg Med. 2014 Nov 10. [Epub ahead of print]
• [14]Subramanian A, Timberlake M, Mittakanti H, Lara M, Brandt ML: Novel educational approach for medical students: improved retention rates using interactive medical software compared with traditional lecture-based format. J Surg Educ 2012, 69(4):449-52.
• [15]Issa N, Mayer RE, Schuller M, Wang E, Shapiro MB, DaRosa DA: Teaching for understanding in medical classrooms using multimedia design principles. Med Educ 2013, 47(4):388-96.
• [16]Ti LK, Chen FG, Tan GM, Tan WT, Tan JM, Shen L, et al.: Experiential learning improves the learning and retention of endotracheal intubation. Med Educ 2009, 43(7):654-60.
• [17]Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL 3rd: Test-enhanced learning in medical education. Med Educ 2008, 42(10):959-66.
• [18]Haladyna T: Guidelines for developing MC items. In Developing and Validating Multiple-Choice Test Items. 3rd edition. Edited by Haladyna T. Routledge, New York, NY; 2004.
• [19]Fincher RE, Abdulla AM, Sridharan MR, Houghton JL, Henke JS: Computer-assisted learning compared with weekly seminars for teaching fundamental electrocardiography to junior medical students. South Med J 1988, 81(10):1291-4.
• [20]Chumley-Jones HS, Dobbie A, Alford CL: Web-based learning: sound educational method or hype? A review of the evaluation literature. Acad Med 2002, 77(10 Suppl):S86-93.
• [21]Donovan JJ, Radosevich DJ: A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. J Appl Psychol 1999, 84(5):795-805.
• [22]Gallagher AG, Jordan-Black JA, O’Sullivan GC: Prospective, randomized assessment of the acquisition, maintenance, and loss of laparoscopic skills. Ann Surg 2012, 256(2):387-93.
• [23]Kerfoot BP, Baker HE, Koch MO, Connelly D, Joseph DB, Ritchey ML: Randomized, controlled trial of spaced education to urology residents in the United States and Canada. J Urology 2007, 177(4):1481-7.
• [24]Baumlin KM, Bessette MJ, Lewis C, Richardson LD: EMCyberSchool: an evaluation of computer-assisted instruction on the Internet. Acad Emerg Med 2000, 7(8):959-62.
• [25]McNulty JA, Halama J, Dauzvardis MF, Espiritu B: Evaluation of Web-based computer-aided instruction in a basic science course. Acad Med 2000, 75(1):59-65.
• [26]Raupach T, Brown J, Wieland A, Anders S, Harendza S: Should we pay the student? A randomised trial of financial incentives in medical education. Med Teach 2013, 35(9):760-6.
• [27]Raupach T, Hanneforth N, Anders S, Pukrop T, Harendza S: Th JtCO: Impact of teaching and assessment format on electrocardiogram interpretation skills. Med Educ 2010, 44(7):731-40.
• [28]Bell DS, Harless CE, Higa JK, Bjork EL, Bjork RA, Bazargan M, et al.: Knowledge retention after an online tutorial: a randomized educational experiment among resident physicians. J Gen Intern Med 2008, 23(8):1164-71.
• [29]Moulton CA, Dubrowski A, Macrae H, Graham B, Grober E, Reznick R: Teaching surgical skills: what kind of practice makes perfect?: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Surg 2006, 244(3):400-9.
• [30]Kerfoot BP, Fu YN, Baker H, Connelly D, Ritchey ML, Genega EM: Online spaced education generates transfer and improves long-term retention of diagnostic skills: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Surgeons 2010, 211(3):331-7.
• [31]Jensen ML, Lippert F, Hesselfeldt R, Rasmussen MB, Mogensen SS, Jensen MK, et al.: The significance of clinical experience on learning outcome from resuscitation training-a randomised controlled study. Resuscitation 2009, 80(2):238-43.
• [32]Semeraro F, Signore L, Cerchiari EL: Retention of CPR performance in anaesthetists. Resuscitation 2006, 68(1):101-8.
• [33]Callahan CA, Hojat M, Gonnella JS: Volunteer bias in medical education research: an empirical study of over three decades of longitudinal data. Med Educ 2007, 41(8):746-53.
• [34]Clark D: Psychological myths in e-learning. Med Teach 2002, 24(6):598-604.
• [35]Spitzer HF: Studies in retention. J Educ Psychol 1939, 30:641-56.