Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorGilmour-White, J A
dc.contributor.authorPicton, A
dc.contributor.authorBlaikie, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorDenniston, A K
dc.contributor.authorBlanch, R
dc.contributor.authorColeman, J
dc.contributor.authorMurray, P I
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-18T09:30:05Z
dc.date.available2019-06-18T09:30:05Z
dc.date.issued2019-06-13
dc.identifier.citationGilmour-White , J A , Picton , A , Blaikie , A , Denniston , A K , Blanch , R , Coleman , J & Murray , P I 2019 , ' Does access to a portable ophthalmoscope improve skill acquisition in direct ophthalmoscopy? A method comparison study in undergraduate medical education ' , BMC Medical Education , vol. 19 , 201 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1644-5en
dc.identifier.issn1472-6920
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 259159349
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 37e99511-0c55-47aa-955e-496a0169ef94
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85067252715
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000471630600010
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0001-7913-6872/work/64034592
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10023/17913
dc.description.abstractBackground: Direct ophthalmoscopy (DO) is an essential skill for medical graduates but there are multiple barriers to learning this. Medical students and junior doctors typically lack confidence in DO. Most students do not own an ophthalmoscope and learn via ward devices that vary in design and usability. The Arclight ophthalmoscope (AO) is an easy to use, low-cost and portable device that could help address device access. This study aimed to assess the impact of personal ownership of an AO on DO skill acquisition and competency amongst medical students in the clinical environment. Methods: Method comparison study with 42 medical students randomised to either traditional device ophthalmoscope (TDO) control or AO intervention group during an 18-week medical placement. Three objective assessments of DO competency were performed at the beginning and end of the placement: vertical cup to disc ratio (VCDR) measurement, fundus photo multiple-choice questions (F-MCQ) and model slide examination (MSE). DO examinations performed during the placement were recorded via an electronic logbook. Results: Students in both groups recorded a median number of six examinations each during an eighteen-week placement. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in any of the objective assessment measures (VCDR p = 0.561, MCQ p = 0.872, Model p = 0.772). Both groups demonstrated a minor improvement in VCDR measurement but a negative performance change in F-MCQ and MSE assessments. Conclusions: Students do not practice ophthalmoscopy often, even with constant access to their own portable device. The lack of significant difference between the groups suggests that device access alone is not the major factor affecting frequency of DO performance and consequent skill acquisition. Improving student engagement with ophthalmoscopy will require a more wide-ranging approach.
dc.format.extent8
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofBMC Medical Educationen
dc.rightsCopyright © The Author(s). 2019 Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.en
dc.subjectUndergraduate medical educationen
dc.subjectOphthalmologyen
dc.subjectDirect ophthalmoscopyen
dc.subjectRE Ophthalmologyen
dc.subjectNDASen
dc.subject.lccREen
dc.titleDoes access to a portable ophthalmoscope improve skill acquisition in direct ophthalmoscopy? A method comparison study in undergraduate medical educationen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Infection and Global Health Divisionen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.School of Medicineen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1644-5
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.identifier.urlhttps://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-019-1644-5en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record