Publication:
Teaching maintenance of medical devices in simulation centers: a pilot study

Thumbnail Image
Files

Files

Teaching maintenance of medical devices in simulation centers a pilot study.pdf (656.78 KB)
View Statistics
Reference Managers
Mendeley
Indexers
Google Scholar CORE
QR Code
QR Code
Authors

Authors

Quiroga Torres, Daniel Alejandro
Presiga, Ana Maria
Flórez Luna, Nestor
Cruz, Antonio Miguel
Abstract (Spanish)
Este artículo tiene como objetivo medir cuáles son los logros de los resultados de aprendizaje percibidos por los estudiantes después de terminar los cursos de dispositivos médicos I y II. Esta es una prueba previa y posterior sin un diseño de estudio de grupo de control. En este estudio piloto participaron veinticuatro estudiantes de los cursos I y II de dispositivos médicos con una prueba en el centro de simulación de un Programa de Ingeniería Biomédica. Una encuesta en papel compuesta por datos demográficos y Likert de 5 puntos (“1” está totalmente en desacuerdo y “5” está totalmente de acuerdo) midió los logros de los resultados de aprendizaje percibidos por los estudiantes después de exponerlos a cursos de dispositivos médicos. Se realizaron una prueba de rango con signo de Wilcoxon y una prueba estadística de la prueba U de Mann-Whitney para probar las dos hipótesis de este estudio. Nuestro análisis mostró resultados estadísticamente significativos entre la media de la suma previa a la encuesta y la DE: 7,50, 1,31; y entre la media posterior a la encuesta y la DE: 8,56, 1,15, p = 0,015, lo que indica que los logros de los resultados de aprendizaje percibidos por los estudiantes después de someterlos a los cursos de dispositivos médicos I y II habían mejorado significativamente al final de los cursos. Además, no se encontraron resultados estadísticamente significativos entre la media posterior a la encuesta y la DE: 4,37, 0,57 percepciones de los resultados de aprendizaje o entre la media de las calificaciones reales de los estudiantes y la DE: 4,58, 0,18, p = 0,28), lo que indica que no hay diferencias entre lo que los estudiantes percibieron que habían aprendido en comparación con lo que realmente habían aprendido.
Abstract (English)
This paper aims to measure what the students’ perceived learning outcome achievements are after finishing medical devices courses I and II. This is a pre- post-test with no control group study design. Twenty-four students doing medical devices courses I and II with a test in the simulation center of a Biomedical Engineering Program participated in this pilot study. A paper-based survey composed of a demographic and 5-point Likert (“1” is strongly disagree and “5” is strongly agree) measured the students’ perceived learning outcome achievements after exposing them to medical devices courses. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney U Test statistics were conducted to test the two hypotheses of this study. Our analysis showed statistically significant results between the pre-survey sum mean and SD: 7.50, 1.31; and between the post-survey mean and SD: 8.56, 1.15, p=0.015, indicating the students’ perceived learning outcome achievements after putting them through medical devices courses I and II had significantly improved by the end of the courses. Also, no statistically significant results were found between the post-survey mean and SD: 4.37, 0.57 learning outcome perceptions or between the students’ actual marks mean and SD: 4.58, 0.18, p=0.28), indicating no differences between what the students perceived they had learned compared with what they had really learned.
URI: https://repositorio.escuelaing.edu.co/handle/001/1576
Collections

Collections

AA. Gibiome
References

ACCE, “American College of Clinical Engineering,” 1992. [Online]. Available: http://accenet.org/about/Documents/What’s_a_Clinical_Engineer.pdf.

J. Nagel, “Protocol for the training of clinical engineers in Europe,” BIOMEDEA PROJECT, Stuttgart, 2005.

HTF, “2013 Candidate Handbook for Certification in Clinical Engineering by the Healthcare Technology Certification Commission,” Healthcare Technology Certification Commission, Plymouth, 2013.

G. H. Buck, “Development of simulators in medical education,” Gesnerus : Swiss Journal of the history of medicine and sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 7-28, 1991.

M. Koretsky, C. Kelly and E. Gummer, “Student Perceptions of Learning in the Laboratory: Comparison of Industrially Situated Virtual Laboratories to Capstone Physical Laboratories,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 540 - 573, 2011.

G. Alinier, B. Hunt, R. Gordon and C. Harwood, “Effectiveness of intermediate-fidelity simulation training technology in undergraduate nursing education,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 359-369, 2006.

I. Gieras, P. Sherman and D. Minsent, “Patient Safety Trilogy: Perspectives from Clinical Engineering,” Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 137-142, 2013.

D. E. a. H. B. A. Ziv, “38 - Clinical Simulation on a National Level: Israel,” in Clinical Simulation, Oxford, Academic Press, 2008, pp. 371-375.

R. J. Glavin, “37 - A National Simulation Center Influences Teaching at a National Level: Scotland,” in Clinical Simulation, Oxford, Academic Press, 2008, pp. 365-370.

S. Mönk, J. Vollmer and W. Heinrichs, “34 - A National Simulation Program: Germany,” in Clinical Simulation, Oxford, Academic Press, 2008, pp. 345-353.

A. Miguel-Cruz, A. Rios-Rincon, W. Rodríguez-Dueñas, N. Florez-Luna and D. Quiroga-Torres, “What is the effect of an introductory biomedical engineering course on the students’ perceptions of the engineering profession?,” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 32, p. 136–149, 1(A) 2016.

J. Biggs, Teaching for Quality Learning At University, Berkshire: England: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 2003, p. 54.

I. Motola, L. A. Devine, H. Soo Chung, J. E. Sullivan and B. Issenberg, “Simulation in healthcare education: A best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 82,” Medical Teacher, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. e1511-e1530, 2013.

L. Portney and M. Watkins, Foundations of Clinical Research:Applications to Practice, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2008, pp. 421-422.