Evaluating the use of BodyWorks Eve�� high-fidelity ultrasound simulation equipment in formative clinical assessments.

Jane Arezina, Sandra Morrissey, Wendy Harrison
Author Information
  1. Jane Arezina: Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. ORCID
  2. Sandra Morrissey: Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
  3. Wendy Harrison: Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. ORCID

Abstract

Introduction: Increasing demand for ultrasound services is reducing learners' access to medical ultrasound clinical experience. High-fidelity simulation equipment, such as the BodyWorks Eve��, enhances the learners' experience and scanning ability. This has the potential to improve patient safety as the learners' ability to detect, identify and accurately report a known pathology can be assessed, which is not possible in clinical practice.
Methods: Participants performed one pathological ultrasound examination on the BodyWorks Eve�� and the participants' performance level was assessed by the primary investigator using a formative clinical assessment form already used by the Diagnostic Imaging programme at the University of Leeds. The outcome was analysed using narrative statistics, and participants' feedback was evaluated using thematic analysis.
Results: A total of 16 participants were recruited. Eight (50%) reached the required level, but eight (50%) failed to reach the required level in at least one of the seven criteria that indicate professionally incompetent or dangerous practice. Thematic analysis of all the participants' comments identified four main themes and two sub-themes which highlighted the benefits of the simulated assessment for prompting reflection, replicating clinical practice and gaining confidence in the assessment process, while also identifying negative aspects such as technical limitations when using the BodyWorks Eve��.
Conclusion: Most participants evaluated the BodyWorks Eve�� favourably. Using BodyWorks Eve�� for formative clinical assessments is feasible and acceptable to participants. Further correlation to outcomes in clinical practice would be useful.

Keywords

References

  1. SAGE Open Nurs. 2023 Aug 13;9:23779608231194403 [PMID: 37584033]
  2. Simul Healthc. 2024 Jan 1;19(1S):S112-S121 [PMID: 38240623]
  3. JMIR Med Educ. 2019 Sep 26;5(2):e13568 [PMID: 31573944]
  4. Mil Med. 2019 Mar 1;184(Suppl 1):386-391 [PMID: 30901403]
  5. Endosc Ultrasound. 2023 May-Jun;12(3):311-318 [PMID: 37693111]
  6. J Res Nurs. 2020 Dec;25(8):652-661 [PMID: 34394687]
  7. Restor Dent Endod. 2017 May;42(2):152-155 [PMID: 28503482]
  8. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016 Feb 22;9:69-82 [PMID: 26955280]
  9. BMC Med Educ. 2022 Jan 30;22(1):71 [PMID: 35093060]
  10. Radiography (Lond). 2019 Oct;25 Suppl 1:S4-S8 [PMID: 31481186]
  11. Qual Health Res. 2016 Nov;26(13):1753-1760 [PMID: 26613970]
  12. Clin Simul Nurs. 2021 Jan;50:79-80 [PMID: 32837632]
  13. Ultraschall Med. 2021 Jun;42(3):240-244 [PMID: 34130348]
  14. Ultrasound. 2015 Nov;23(4):204-11 [PMID: 27433260]
  15. Ultrasound. 2023 Nov;31(4):273-283 [PMID: 37929254]
  16. Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Nov;15(11):1079-87 [PMID: 18828833]
  17. BMC Med Educ. 2023 Oct 30;23(1):815 [PMID: 37904153]
  18. SAGE Open Nurs. 2020 Jun 01;6:2377960820927377 [PMID: 33415282]
  19. Radiography (Lond). 2020 Feb;26(1):3-8 [PMID: 31902452]
  20. Med J Aust. 2012 May 21;196(9):594 [PMID: 22621154]
  21. BMJ Open. 2023 Sep 26;13(9):e069782 [PMID: 37751955]
  22. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2020 Jan-Mar;13(1):5-14 [PMID: 32395043]
  23. Acta Inform Med. 2021 Mar;29(1):15-20 [PMID: 34012208]
  24. Adv Simul (Lond). 2022 Dec 28;7(1):42 [PMID: 36578052]

Word Cloud

Similar Articles

Cited By