Pelvic manikins as learning aids

The use of pelvic trainers in undergraduate teaching was evaluated, using a questionnaire based on examination findings of a series of four pelvic trainers by 20 medical students and 34 gynaecologists. The main outcome measures were the ability to correctly identify pelvic findings in the trainers, and the numbers of false positive findings. There were two adnexal masses in two of the trainers. One was correctly identified by 33 (14 (70%) medical students and 19 (56%) doctors) in one trainer, whereas the other was missed by 52 of 54 examiners. Prolapse was missed by 41 of 54. The normal pelvis was correctly identified by 30 (16 (80%) medical students and 20 (59%) doctors. There were 15 false positive identifications of adnexal masses (6 by medical students and 9 by doctors) and 22 false positive identification of uterine enlargements (5 by medical students and 17 by doctors). The pelvic trainers were of value in demonstrating the process of pelvic and speculum examination. Some of the clinical conditions emulated were missed by most of the gynaecologists, suggesting that they were not suitable for training students in abnormal findings. Although the figures were not statistically significant, there was a trend for qualified doctors rather than medical students to make false positive findings.