Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 28, 2025
Author Spotlight: Evaluating Clinicians' Adoption of Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Cannulation Through Simulation Training
Published on: August 9, 2024
Effectiveness of Lung Ultrasound Training Utilizing a High-Fidelity Simulator
Kenichiro Takeda1, Hajime Kasai1, Hiroshi Tajima1
1Department of Respirology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan.
Background:
The usefulness of lung ultrasound (LUS) has been demonstrated. However, it is unclear whether diagnostic techniques using LUS are accepted by all physicians. A simple simulation-based educational program may improve the LUS skills of beginners, but it has not been fully assessed.
Objective:
This prospective study was conducted to assess the educational outcomes of LUS training using a high-fidelity simulator.
Methods:
A simulator-based program for LUS was conducted. All clerkship students at the Department of Respirology at Chiba University Hospital participated in the program from December 2022 to April 2023. The participants watched a 30 minute teaching video on demand before a hands-on session lasting for 1 hour during the first week of the clinical clerkship. The readiness of the participants to learn LUS and the usefulness of the program were assessed using questionnaires administered before and after the program. The LUS skills were assessed using simulator-based tests during Weeks 1 and 4. Data on the accuracy and time required to answer the questions were collected during the tests.
Results:
Forty clerkship students participated in this study. Thirty-three (82.5%) had received other ultrasound education; however, only two (5.0%) had experience with LUS. Based on the questionnaire responses, the participants perceived LUS as useful (preprogram: 4.6 vs. postprogram: 4.8; P = 0.010; a 5-point Likert scale was used [1: not useful to 5: useful]). The simulator-based tests showed comparable accuracies at Weeks 1 and 4 for pneumothorax (Week 1: 47.5% vs. Week 4: 52.5%; P = 0.623), pulmonary edema (Week 1: 100% vs. Week 4: 100%; P = 1.000), and pleural effusion (Week 1: 37.5% vs. Week 4: 40.0%; P = 0.800). The time required for scanning was the same for each question. In addition, the test results did not differ with prior learning, previous knowledge, or experience during clinical clerkships on LUS.
Conclusion:
A short educational program consisting of on-demand learning and hands-on sessions with a high-fidelity simulator would be effective in equipping clerkship students with basic LUS skills. However, to increase its educational effectiveness to a practical degree, the program should be improved, and more opportunities for training using simulators should be provided.
