Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 85967

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : June | Volume : 16 | Issue : 6 | Page : JC01 - JC05 Full Version

Usefulness of Simulation Based Learning in First Year Medical Students: A Quasi-experimental Study


Published: June 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/56036.16437
Vinod Shende, Sachin Pawar, Suvarna Sande

1. Associate Professor, Department of Physiology, Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sevagram, Wardha, Maharashtra, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Physiology, Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sevagram, Wardha, Maharashtra, India. 3. Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology, Datta Meghe Medical Collge, Wanadongri, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Vinod Shende,
Associate Professor, Department of Physiology, Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sevagram, Wardha, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: drvinodshende@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Auscultation of chest is an important part of clinical patient assessment and the skills required to interpret it are traditionally learned by listening the heart and lung sounds of many different patients. It may be difficult for the students to compare actual heart and lung sounds with similar findings. Therefore, use of simulated heart and lung sounds in teaching and training of medical students may be helpful in such scenario as it allows the repetitive and individualized oriented training in support of learning in real scenarios.

Aim: To evaluate the usefulness of simulation in understanding various respiratory and cardiovascular sounds, to assess the learning gain of students by pretest and post-test and to evaluate the perception of students towards simulation based learning.

Materials and Methods: The present quasi-experimental study was carried out on 100 first year MBBS students at Clinical Skills Laboratory and Department of Physiology, at Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, Maharashtra, India, from April 2018 to September 2018. Pretest was taken before intervention from all participants. Students were randomly divided into two groups. Group I had undergone clinical examination of Cardiovascular System (CVS) and Respiratory System (RS), where as, group II had undergone clinical examination of CVS and RS as well simulation based learning. Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), post-test and feedback was obtained from all participants. Data was analysed using Microsoft excel and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 software.

Results: Both groups had 50 subjects each,with age group of 18-20 years and mean age 18.3±1.9 years . There were 21 male and 29 female subjects in both groups. Mean scores of OSCE in group I and II were 7 and 8.18 respectively. Mean score of pretest in group I and II were 5.04 and 5.02 respectively, whereas mean score of post-test in group I and II were 6.66 and 7.54 respectively. Comparison of OSCE and post-test scores in two groups was found to be statistically significant (p-value <0.0001).

Conclusion: Understanding of cardiovascular and respiratory sounds was better in group II where simulation based learning was used compared to other group. Hence, it was concluded that simulation based learning is useful additional tool to learn clinical examination of cardiovascular and respiratory physiology. It helps first MBBS students to enhance their clinical knowledge, skills and attitude.

Keywords

Heart sounds, Learning gain, Lung sounds, Physiology

Clinical examination skills are very important and are identified as being fundamental to the practice of medicine. A decline in the clinical skills of medical students and junior doctors is well documented (1). Auscultation of chest is an important part of clinical patient assessment. The skills required to interpret the auscultatory findings are traditionally learned by listening the heart and lung sounds of many different patients. It may be difficult for the students to compare actual heart and lung sounds with similar findings, since they may not be accessible at the same time, also rare auscultatory findings are not available for demonstration (2).

This may lead to under or over diagnosis ultimately leading to financial implications for the patients. Therefore, use of simulated heart and lung sounds in teaching and training of medical students may be helpful in such scenario as it allows the repetitive and individualized oriented training in support of learning in real scenarios. Simulation Based Learning (SBL) offers gain of clinical skills by practice on an artificial representation of a real world process to accomplish educational goals through empirical learning (3). Improved clinician performance in simulated emergencies should translate into improved performance in real patient care situations (4).

A cross sectional study conducted on 185 medical students to see the effect of simulation based learning found out that students were happy with the teaching methods, mannequins used and learning atmosphere. It was observed that in spite of some challenges, maximum students were happy with the simulation based learning and accepted that their knowledge retention, communication and skills improved with SBL (5). Although few studies have been conducted in the past to see the usefulness of SBL, most of these studies (3),(4),(5) were carried out on students in later years of MBBS curriculum whereas in present study we tried to introduce the SBL at first year itself as it is crucial to introduce the SBL at the beginning of medical course. Hence, to assess the potential usefulness of heart and lung sound simulator in understanding the physiology, this topic was chosen.

Aim of the present study was to evaluate the usefulness of simulation in understanding different respiratory and cardiovascular sounds, to assess the learning gain of students by pretest and post-test and to study the perception of students towards simulation based learning.

Material and Methods

The present quasi-experimental study was carried out on 100 first year MBBS students at Clinical Skills Laboratory and Department of Physiology, at Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, Maharashtra, India, from April 2018 to September 2018. Institutional Ethics Committee approval was obtained (IEC/131/2017). Written informed consent was obtained from all the subjects.

Inclusion criteria: All the first year medical students, of both the gender and who gave written informed consent were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Students not willing to participate and those who did not provide the written informed consent were excluded from the study.

As this was an educational study, all 100 first year MBBS student were recruited the Random sampling method was used to select the participants. Authors used 100 chits (50 each for group I and II). The students to picked up the chit and accordingly recruited the student in particular group.

Each group was taught as given below:

Group I: Clinical examination of Respiratory System (RS) and Cardiovascular System (CVS) (Traditional way of clinical examination of RS and CVS under inspection, palpation, percussion and auscultation).

Group II: Clinical examination of respiratory and cardiovascular system (traditional way of clinical examination of RS and CVS under inspection, palpation, percussion and auscultation) and simulation based learning of RS and CVS.

Procedure

Two sessions of simulation based learning were organized, first session was conducted immediately after completion of tradition practical session and second session was conducted during revision practicals at the end of clinical examination section. Each session was of 2 hours duration. Senior faculty members of the department supervised the sessions.

The simulator used in the study was a portable handy instrument manufactured by Pinnacle Technology Group Inc. Two plug-in modules were there along with the instrument - one simulates 16 types of different lung sounds. Other simulates 16 different types of heart sounds and additional sounds (murmurs) .This instrument was available in the Institute’s Skill Laboratory.

Pretest was conducted for all the participants before the start of study. Pretest was an Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) based test with 10 questions, each question carry 1 mark. MCQ questions were selected from departmental prevalidated MCQ bank; additionally these questions were discussed with senior faculty members of the department before administering it to the students. Maximum and minimum possible scores were 10 and 0 respectively, score of more than five was considered as high scores whereas score of five or less considered as low scores. As pre test was conducted before the start of study, the scores obtained by the students indicate their previous knowledge. Then students were divided into two groups: Group I and II.

Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) session was conducted for all participants. Authors made 10 stations; in each station one particular activity (to listen the heart/respiratory sound and interpret the sound) was given to students carrying 1 mark each. Faculty was present in each station to check whether students have performed correctly or not and accordingly mark was allotted. If performed correctly one mark was given and no mark was given if not performed correctly. Maximum and minimum possible scores are 10 and 0 respectively, score of more than five considered as high scores whereas score of five or less considered as low scores. The OSCE session was conducted to assess the skills and performance of students, whereas post-test was conducted to check their knowledge. The OSCE was conducted after the training sessions on both group participants to evaluate usefulness of simulation based learning. Post-test was conducted eight weeks after pretest.

After data collection was complete, authors did crossover of students in two groups so that each student will be taught theory, clinical examination as well as simulation based teaching (ANNEXURE I and II).

Authors conducted the OSCE on all 100 students and compared the mean score of two different groups. Authors conducted pre test and post-test to compare the learning gain of students of two groups. Authors measured Absolute learning gain (post-test - pretest), Relative learning gain (post-test- pretest/pretest) and Normalized gain (the change in the class average score divided by the maximum possible gain) (6),(7).

Questionnaire

A self developed questionnaire was devised by the researchers to check the students perception towards simulation based learning, after reviewing the literature (6),(7). Questionnaire containing 10 questions were given to all 100 (both group I and II) students at the end of the study to check perception of students regarding simulation based learning. This questionnaire was validated by an experienced reviewer and the reliability (Cronbachs alpha >0.7) was determined for all the question items. Responses were measured on a 5 point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree(5) and interpretation was in percentage of students satisfaction (ANNEXURE III: Feedback form).

Statistical Analysis

Data was analyzed using Microsoft excel and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0. Independent t-test was used to compare the data and p<0.05 is considered statistically significant.

Results

In the present study 100 first year MBBS students with mean age 18.3±1.9 years were divided into two groups of 50 students each. Both Group I and II contain 50 students each. They were matched for gender distribution. Both the groups consisted of 42% male (21) and 58% female (29) students. Comparison of two groups was found to be statistically non significant (Table/Fig 1).

Mean score of pretest in group I was 5.04 and in group II was 5.02. Comparison of pretest score in two groups was found to be statistically non significant (Table/Fig 2).

Mean score of post-test in group I was 6.66 and in group II was 7.54. Comparison of post-test score in two groups was found to be statistically significant (Table/Fig 3).

Mean score of pretest and post-test in group I were 5.04 and 6.66 respectively whereas mean score of pretest and post-test in group II were 5.02 and 7.54 respectively. Comparison of pretest and post-test scores in both the groups were found to be statistically significant (Table/Fig 4).

Absolute learning gain, relative learning gain and class average normalized gain in group I were 1.62, 0.43 and 0.31 respectively. Whereas, absolute learning gains, relative learning gain and class average normalized gain in group II were 2.52, 0.65 and 0.48 respectively (Table/Fig 5).

Mean score of OSCE in group I was 7 and in group II was 8.18. Comparison of OSCE score in two groups was found to be statistically significant (Table/Fig 6). Feedback (in questionnaire form) from students for simulation based learning on Likert scale is presented in (Table/Fig 7).

Discussion

In the present study, we conducted pretest and post-test on both the groups to assess the learning gain. Pretest score for group I and II was 5.04 and 5.02 respectively. The pretest score are statistically non significant (p-value=0.945) suggesting that two groups are comparable. Post-test score for group I and II was 6.66 and 7.54 respectively. The post-test score of two groups are statistically significant (p-value <0.001). This result shows significant improvement of post-test scores in group II compared to group I after intervention. It indicates that SBL resulted in enhancement of knowledge about clinical examination of cardiovascular and respiratory system examination. results of present study were comparable to that of Liaw SY et al., conducted the study on 31 nursing students and reported, there was significant improvement on post-test scores from pretest scores for self-confidence and knowledge after simulation based learning (8). The present study findings are in accordance with Bray SB et al., they used pretest and post-test to assess the impact of simulation based learning on pharmacy student. They mentioned significant improvement in knowledge and retention in those students (9).

Steadman RH et al., observed better transfer of knowledge in simulation educated students compared with traditional teaching (10). Other studies have demonstrated more student satisfaction for material taught with simulation compared with traditional modalities such as Power-point presentation, self study session and group discussion (11),(12),(13). Studies have reported that student gain more knowledge and confidence during simulation sessions for clinical examination and also improves communication and team work in emergency situations (14), (15).

Authors also compared the score of OSCE in two groups. Group I with traditional clinical teaching has mean score of 7. Whereas group II with traditional clinical teaching along with simulation based learning has mean score 8.18. Authors found statistical significant difference (p-value <0.001) between two group scores, suggesting that traditional clinical teaching along with simulation based learning is more effective. Ryall T et al., their systemic review mentioned that 27% studies use OSCE as the method of evaluation for simulation based learning (16). The present study results are comparable to that of Zarifsanaiey N et al., conducted OSCE on 40 students to assess the effectiveness of traditional method over simulation based learning. They found significant higher performance in OSCE score of simulation based learning group (17).

It is necessary for medical graduates to have sufficient exposure to real patients so that they can acquire the necessary skills. On the other hand, there should be accountability to ensure patient’s safety, comfort and well-being. These two competing needs can sometimes pose a dilemma in medical education (18). At first MBBS level, students learn to auscultate chest for heart and respiratory sounds. As both these organs lie close to each other, seldom there is confusion in what to hear during auscultation. Thus simulation-based learning can be the answer to developing student’s knowledge, skills, and attitudes, while protecting patients from unnecessary discomfort and risks. Simulation-based learning can be a platform for learning to alleviate ethical concerns and resolve practical dilemmas (19).

In the present study, we studied the student’s perception about simulation based learning. A questionnaire was used in the form of feedback form to assess student’s perception. Most of the students strongly agreed that simulation based learning is a useful addition to traditional learning with real patients and they would prefer more training with simulators. Students strongly agreed that simulation based learning made topic more interesting, it helped them to retain knowledge and improved their clinical skills of auscultation. Most of the students agreed that simulation based learning helped them to be more confident in clinical examination and it will also improve their performance in clinical examination of Physiology.

The present study results are in agreement with that of Joseph N et al., conducted a study to explore the perception of 247 medical students towards simulation based learning. They reported that SBL was perceived as favorable by a large number of participants indicating a bright prospect for its implementation in the medical curriculum (20).

Limitation(s)

The simulation instrument used provides the heart and lung sounds only. Although it is useful in better understanding of heart and lung sounds, the SBL sessions organized are less. There should be more SBL sessions for better understanding and acquiring the requisite skills.

Conclusion

Simulation based learning was introduced to students to assess their understanding of RS and CVS, it was found that the performance (post-test, OSCE, learning gain) of group II students was better compared to group I students. Student’s had perceived SBL approach positively, implying that the simulation based learning is useful additional tool to learn clinical examination of cardiovascular and respiratory physiology. It helps first MBBS students to enhance their clinical knowledge, skills and attitude. Thus, its use should be increased and simulation based learning should be incorporated in the existing undergraduate curriculum of Physiology. The SBL should be used in all subjects and its usefulness shall be assessed in future studies.

Acknowledgement

Authors would like to thank all the faculties of Department of Physiology and first MBBS students for their cooperation and willingness to participate in the study. Authors also appreciate guide Dr. Suvarna Sande for her valuable inputs to this project.

References

1.
Oliver CM, Hunter SA, Ikeda T, Galletly DC. Junior doctor skill in the art of physical examination: a retrospective study of the medical admission note over four decades. BMJ Open. 2013;3(4):e002257. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002257. [crossref] [PubMed]
2.
Kompis M, Russi EW. Computer based lung sound simulation. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing. 1997;35(3):231-38. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Abdulmohsen H. Al-Elq. Simulation-based medical teaching and learning. J Family Community Med. 2010;17(1):35-40. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
MacIntyre NR. Respiratory system simulations and modeling. Respir Care. 2004;49(4):401-08.
5.
Agha S, Alhamrani AY, Khan MA. Satisfaction of medical students with simulation based Learning. Saudi Med J. 2015;36(6):731-36. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Rawekar A, Jagzape A, Srivastava T, Gotarkar S. Skill Learning Through Early Clinical Exposure: An Experience of Indian Medical School. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(1):01-04. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Westphale S , Backhaus J, Koenig S. Quantifying teaching quality in medical education: The impact of learning gain calculation. Med Educ. 2022;56(3):312-20. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Liaw SY, Scherpbier A, Rethans JJ, Klainin-Yobas P. Assessment for simulation learning outcomes: a comparison of knowledge and self-reported confidence with observed clinical performance. Nurse Educ Today. 2012;32(6):35-39. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Bray BS, Schwartz CR, Odegard PS, Hammer DP, and Seybert AL. Assessment of Human Patient Simulation-Based Learning. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011;75(10):208. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Steadman RH, Coates WC, Huang YM, Matevosian R, Larmon BR, McCullough L, et al. Simulation-based training is superior to problem-based learning for the acquisition of critical assessment and management skills. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:151-57. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
McCoy CE, Menchine M, Anderson C, Kollen R, Langdorf MI, Lotfipour S. Prospective randomized crossover study of simulation vs. didactics for teaching medical students the assessment and management of critically ill patients. J Emerg Med. 2010;40:448-55. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Reynolds A, Ayres-de-Campos D, Bastos LF, van Meurs WL, Bernardes J. Impact of labor and delivery simulation classes in undergraduate medical learning. Med Educ. 2008;13:14. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Ten Eyck RP, Tews M, Ballester JM. Improved medical student satisfaction and test performance with a simulation-based emergency medicine curriculum: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54:684-91. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Traynor M, Gallagher A, Martin L, Smyth S. From novice to expert: Using simulators to enhance practical skill. Br J Nurs. 2010;19:1422-26. [crossref] [PubMed]
15.
Ennen CS, Satin AJ. Training and assessment in obstetrics: The role of simulation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;24:747-58. [crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Ryall T, Judd BK, and Gordon CJ. Simulation-based assessments in health professional education: a systematic review. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:69-82. [crossref] [PubMed]
17.
Zarifsanaiey N, Amini M, Saadat F. A comparison of educational strategies for the acquisition of nursing student's performance and critical thinking: simulation-based training vs. Integrated training (simulation and critical thinking strategies). BMC Medical Education. 2016;16:294. [crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Jha AK, Duncan BW, Bates DW. Simulator based training and patient safety in: Making health care safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices. Agency for Health care, Research and Quality, US dept of Health and Human Services. 2001:511-18.
19.
Lateef F. Simulation-based learning: Just like the real thing. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2010;3(4):348-52. [crossref] [PubMed]
20.
Joseph N, Nelliyanil M, Jindal S, Utkarsha, Abraham AE, Alok Y, et al. Perception of Simulation-based Learning among Medical Students in South India. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2015;5(4):247-52. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/56036.16437

Date of Submission: Mar 02, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Mar 22, 2022
Date of Acceptance: May 10, 2022
Date of Publishing: Jun 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Mar 09, 2022
• Manual Googling: Mar 12, 2022
• iThenticate Software: May 06, 2022 (20%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com