Teaching of diagnostic skills in equine gynecology: simulator-based training versus schooling on live horses.

The research explores the effectiveness of simulator-based training compared to traditional horse-based training for teaching diagnostic skills in equine gynecology to veterinary students. The study found that repeated simulator-based training is a beneficial tool and more effective than a single training session using live horses.

Research Methodology

• The study involved third-year veterinary students divided into three groups:
  • Group H4: Students who received four training sessions on live horses.
  • Group H1: Students who received one training session on live horses.
  • Group Sim: Students who trained four times on a simulator.
• The researchers measured the learning outcome in equine gynecology by conducting two tests on live horses 14 days apart.

Key Findings

• Group H4 consistently scored higher in transrectal palpation tasks compared to Groups Sim and H1.
• Across all groups, the students performed better when palpating the left ovary compared to the right one. However, Group H1 was least successful in obtaining accurate ovarian findings.
• No differential scores were noted among the groups for ultrasound examinations.
• Group Sim students performed almost as well in terms of transrectal palpation of genital tract as the Group H4 students, and in most parameters assessed, they outperformed Group H1.

Implications

• The research implies that repeated simulator-based training is a useful preparation tool for veterinary students learning transrectal palpation of the genital tract in mares.
• Furthermore, the findings suggest that multiple training sessions (either on live horses or simulators) are more effective than a single training on live horses.
• The less successful outcomes from Group H1 underscore the need for repeated sessions to consolidate learning.

Limitations and Future Recommendations

• While Group H4 students scored better than the other groups, this was not by a large margin, suggesting the overall effect of intensive training is limited.
• Future research might explore why Group H4 did not execute significantly better results, despite receiving more hands-on training. Additional variables such as background knowledge, prior experience or learning techniques could be considered.