↓ Skip to main content

Teaching basic lung isolation skills on human anatomy simulator: attainment and retention of lung isolation skills

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Teaching basic lung isolation skills on human anatomy simulator: attainment and retention of lung isolation skills
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12871-015-0169-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rana K. Latif, Edgar M. VanHorne, Sunitha Kanchi Kandadai, Alexander F. Bautista, Aurel Neamtu, Anupama Wadhwa, Mary B. Carter, Craig H. Ziegler, Mohammed Faisal Memon, Ozan Akça

Abstract

Lung isolation skills, such as correct insertion of double lumen endobronchial tube and bronchial blocker, are essential in anesthesia training; however, how to teach novices these skills is underexplored. Our aims were to determine (1) if novices can be trained to a basic proficiency level of lung isolation skills, (2) whether video-didactic and simulation-based trainings are comparable in teaching lung isolation basic skills, and (3) whether novice learners' lung isolation skills decay over time without practice. First, five board certified anesthesiologist with experience of more than 100 successful lung isolations were tested on Human Airway Anatomy Simulator (HAAS) to establish Expert proficiency skill level. Thirty senior medical students, who were naive to bronchoscopy and lung isolation techniques (Novice) were randomized to video-didactic and simulation-based trainings to learn lung isolation skills. Before and after training, Novices' performances were scored for correct placement using pass/fail scoring and a 5-point Global Rating Scale (GRS); and time of insertion was recorded. Fourteen novices were retested 2 months later to assess skill decay. Experts' and novices' double lumen endobronchial tube and bronchial blocker passing rates showed similar success rates after training (P >0.99). There were no differences between the video-didactic and simulation-based methods. Novices' time of insertion decayed within 2 months without practice. Novices could be trained to basic skill proficiency level of lung isolation. Video-didactic and simulation-based methods we utilized were found equally successful in training novices for lung isolation skills. Acquired skills partially decayed without practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Master 8 15%
Other 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 13 24%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 10 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,436,183
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#990
of 1,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,507
of 394,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#13
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,496 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 394,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.