Validating a self confidence scale for surgical trainees
Mean scores improved between baseline and post-revision attempts by 8.7% (p = 0.003), 19.8% (p = 0.0001), and 15.9% (p = 0.001) for no resources, traditional resources, and MAS, respectively.However, when comparing mean score improvements between groups there were no significant differences.Similarly, students were told not to specifically revise in advance of the study, and this was in order to ascertain a representative assessment of baseline day-to-day competence.Students were informed that they were ineligible to enter the study if they had previously attempted any of the clinical skills modules on the MAS.Touch Surgery has previously been validated for intramedullary femoral nailing , yet, to date, its validity as a training tool in more commonly performed ward-based clinical skills and undergraduate level procedures remains unknown.As such, the primary aim of this pilot study was to evaluate whether mobile application simulators (MAS’s) are a useful alternative to traditional educational approaches for medical undergraduates revising routine, ward-based clinical skills (e.g. Secondary aims included: 1) to assess the confidence of medical students in performing core clinical skills procedures, and 2) to determine whether self-assessed confidence correlated with objectively scored performance.Mobile simulators offer an unconventional, yet potentially useful adjunct to enhance undergraduate clinical skills education.
All procedures are developed in combination with, and reviewed by, procedure-specific experts .
Nevertheless, to date, it has never been formally validated as an adjunct in undergraduate medical education.
Medical students in the final 3 years of their programme were recruited and randomised to one of three revision interventions: 1) no formal revision resources, 2) traditional revision resources, or 3) MAS.
We piloted a pragmatic single-blinded, randomised controlled study design to evaluate the effectiveness of a freely available and widely used MAS.
A comparative three-arm trial design was used, allowing us to compare the following groups: 1) no formal teaching intervention, 2) traditional gold-standard learning resources, and 3) MAS (Fig. Clinical medical students in years 4–6 of a six-year programme were recruited from a single London medical school.