Use of Low-Cost Task Trainer for Emergency Department Thoracotomy Training in General Surgery Residency Program.

Objective: Emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) is an uncommon but potentially lifesaving procedure that warrants familiarity with anatomy, instruments, and indications necessary for completion. To address this need, we developed a low-cost EDT trainer. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a low-cost EDT trainer to teach emergency department thoracotomy with a discussion-based teaching session. Secondary objective was to study the face validity of the low-cost EDT trainer.

Design: A prospective 2-phase randomized control study was conducted. Participants were randomly divided into two groups. In phase one, baseline medical knowledge for both groups was assessed using a multiple-choice question pretest. In Group 1, each participant was taught EDT using a one-on-one discussion with a trauma surgeon, whereas Group 2 used the EDT trainer and debriefing for training. In phase 2 (1 month later), all participants completed a knowledge retention test and performed a videoed EDT using our EDT trainer, the video recordings were later reviewed by content experts blinded to the study participants using a checklist with a maximum score of 22. The participants also completed a reaction survey at the end of phase 2 of the study.

Setting: OhioHealth Riverside Methodist Hospital, an urban tertiary care academic hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

Participants: Nine senior surgery residents from training years 3 to 5.

Results: The mean score for the performance of the procedure for the simulation-based (Group 2) was significantly higher than that of the discussion-based (Group 1) (Rater 1: 21.2 ± 0.8 vs. 19.0 ± 2.0, p = 0.05, Rater 2: 20.4 ± 1.5 vs. 18.3±1.0, p = 0.04). Group 2 also was quicker than Group 1 in deciding to start the procedure by approximately 56 seconds. When comparing the mean pretest knowledge score to the mean knowledge retention score 30 days after training, the discussion-based group improved from 58.33% to 81.25% (p = 0.01); the simulation-trained group's scores remained at 68.33%. All the participants agreed or strongly agreed that the simulator provided a realistic opportunity to perform EDT and improved their confidence.

Conclusions: The results of this pilot study support our hypothesis that using a low-cost EDT trainer effectively improves general surgery residents' confidence and procedural skills scores in a simulated environment. Further training with low-cost simulators may provide surgical residents with deliberate practice opportunities and improve performance when learning low-frequency procedures.