4.5 Article

Peer-assisted teaching of basic surgical skills

期刊

MEDICAL EDUCATION ONLINE
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CO-ACTION PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.3402/meo.v20.27579

关键词

clinical education; surgical education; peer-assisted learning; suturing; simulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Basic surgical skills training is rarely emphasised in undergraduate medical curricula. However, the provision of skills tutorials requires significant commitment from time-constrained surgical faculty. Purpose: We aimed to determine how a peer-assisted suturing workshop could enhance surgical skills competency among medical students and enthuse them towards a career in surgery. Methods: Senior student tutors delivered two suturing workshops to second-and third-year medical students. Suturing performance was assessed before and after teaching in a 10-min suturing exercise (variables measured included number of sutures completed, suture tension, and inter-suture distance). Following the workshop, students completed a questionnaire assessing the effect of the workshop on their suturing technique and their intention to pursue a surgical career. Results: Thirty-five students attended. Eighty-one percent believed their medical school course provided insufficient basic surgical skills training. The mean number of sutures completed post-teaching increased significantly (p < 0.001), and the standard deviation of mean inter-suture distance halved from +/- 4.7 mm pre-teaching, to +/- 2.6 mm post-teaching. All students found the teaching environment to be relaxed, and all felt the workshop helped to improve their suturing technique and confidence; 87% found the peer-taught workshop had increased their desire to undertake a career in surgery. Discussion: Peer-assisted learning suturing workshops can enhance medical students' competence with surgical skills and inspire them towards a career in surgery. With very little staff faculty contribution, it is a cheap and sustainable way to ensure ongoing undergraduate surgical skills exposure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据