Are simulation stethoscopes a useful adjunct for emergency residents' training on high-fidelity mannequins?

Abstract

Introduction: Emergency medicine residents use simulation training for many reasons, such as gaining experience with critically ill patients and becoming familiar with disease processes. Residents frequently criticize simulation training using current high-fidelity mannequins due to the poor quality of physical exam findings present, such as auscultatory findings, as it may lead them down an alternate diagnostic or therapeutic pathway. Recently wireless remote programmed stethoscopes (simulation stethoscopes) have been developed that allow wireless transmission of any sound to a stethoscope receiver, which improves the fidelity of a physical examination and the simulation case. Methods: Following institutional review committee approval, 14 PGY1-3 emergency medicine residents were assessed during 2 simulation-based cases using pre-defined scoring anchors on multiple actions, such as communication skills and treatment decisions (Appendix 1). Each case involved a patient presenting with dyspnea requiring management based off physical examination findings. One case was a patient with exacerbation of heart failure, while the other was a patient with a tension pneumothorax. Each resident was randomized into a case associated with the simulation stethoscope. Following the cases residents were asked to fill out an evaluation questionnaire. Results: Residents perceived the most realistic physical exam findings on those associated with the case using the simulation stethoscope (13/14, 93%). Residents also preferred the simulation stethoscope as an adjunct to the case (13/14, 93%), and they rated the simulation stethoscope case to have significantly more realistic auscultatory findings (4.4/5 vs. 3.0/5 difference of means 1.4, p=0.0007). Average scores of residents were significantly better in the simulation stethoscopeassociated case (2.5/3 vs. 2.3/3 difference of means 0.2, p=0.04). There was no considerable difference in the total time taken per case. Conclusion: A simulation stethoscope may be a useful adjunct to current emergency medicine simulation-based training. Residents both preferred the use of the simulation stethoscope and perceived physical exam findings to be more realistic, leading to improved fidelity. Potential sources of bias include the small population, narrow scoring range, and the lack of blinding. Further research, focusing on use for resident assessment and clinical significance with a larger population and blinding of graders, is needed.