A comparison of arthrocentesis teaching tools: cadavers, synthetic joint models, and the relative utility of different educational modalities in improving trainees' comfort with procedures.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND: Each year, rheumatology programs across the country teach incoming trainees the skill of arthrocentesis, but the relative effectiveness of various teaching techniques has not been assessed in a systematic way. OBJECTIVES: We compared approaches to teaching arthrocentesis using cadavers versus anatomic models. METHODS: In a pilot study, new rheumatology fellows (n = 7) from 2 academic institutions were surveyed at 3 points during arthrocentesis training: (1) before assuming patient care; (2) after lecture with handouts, followed by practice either on cadavers (group A) or on synthetic joint models (group B); and (3) 6 weeks into fellowship. Fellows rated their comfort levels for arthrocentesis of specific joints using 9-point Likert scales. Fellows also retrospectively rated the utility of individual teaching modalities in helping them to learn. As a follow-up study, internal medicine residents taking part in a month-long rheumatology rotation were similarly surveyed on their comfort level performing knee and shoulder arthrocentesis before a cadaver teaching laboratory and at the end of their month rotation. RESULTS: The initial mean comfort level performing arthrocentesis for all fellows was low (2.01). After the cadaver teaching session, group A fellows experienced an overall comfort level increase of 1.95, with the largest single increase reported for shoulder arthrocentesis (3.86). After the anatomic model teaching session, group B fellows reported a mean comfort increase of 1.29, with the largest increase reported for knee arthrocentesis (3.13). The subsequent study with residents confirmed significant increases in comfort after the cadaver laboratory. When surveyed, the learning experience fellows considered most effective was the opportunity to perform procedures under supervision and guidance, followed by training on cadavers. CONCLUSIONS: Although all teaching interventions for trainees learning arthrocentesis were helpful for increasing trainee's comfort with arthrocentesis, the use of cadavers seemed to be superior to synthetic anatomic models or lectures alone. The specific impact of these teaching interventions on actual competence, defined as a performance outcome, deserves additional study.
