Skip Navigation LinksHome > June 2009 - Volume 110 - Issue 6 > Looking Beyond Model Fidelity
Anesthesiology:
doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181a51cd1
Correspondence

Looking Beyond Model Fidelity

Boet, Sylvain M.D.*; Bould, Mathew D. M.B., Ch.B., M.R.C.P., F.R.C.A.; Diemunsch, Pierre A. M.D., Ph.D.

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

Back to Top | Article Outline

To the Editor:—

We read with interest the article by Chandra et al. in which the authors address the cost-effectiveness of simulation-based teaching of procedural skills.1 The authors compared an inexpensive low-fidelity simulator to a relatively expensive high-fidelity simulator for learning a complex psychomotor skill: Fiberoptic orotracheal intubation. They found that the high-fidelity simulator had no additional educational benefit.
These findings are consistent with the results of other research that has found low-fidelity models to be as effective as high-fidelity models in early skill acquisition2,3 although there is some evidence that high-fidelity models may have an advantage later in the learning curve supporting a graduated approach through models of increasing fidelity.4 However, we would like to suggest an alternative factor that affects the analysis of Chandra’s findings. In addition to differences in fidelity, the models used can also be differentiated according to the part task training theory.5
Part task training is defined as the deconstruction of multicomponent tasks into several single-component tasks. When each skill is learned separately, the single-task format allows a more rapid development of automaticity, reducing processing demands during subsequent integration into the performance of the whole procedure.6 Fiberoptic orotracheal intubation is a complex psychomotor task which requires the association of two component skills: The manipulation of the fiberoptic bronchoscope and the appreciation of the endoscopic view of the upper airway anatomy.
The AccuTouch Flexible Bronchoscopy Simulator (Immersion Medical, Gaithersburg, MD) can be considered a full task trainer model, whereas the “choose-the-hole” model can be classified as a single task trainer dedicated to learn specifically the manipulation of the bronchoscope. The other component skill of identifying the endoscopic appearance of the airway anatomy can be achieved through other simulators such as the virtual fiberoptic intubation part task trainer. The virtual fiberoptic intubation software (Institut de Recherche contre les Cancers de l’Appareil Digestif, Strasbourg, France) is a free screen-based simulator that focuses on learning normal and altered endoscopic airway anatomy away from the fiberoptic bronchoscope.7 Using only the computer’s mouse or keyboard, this virtual progression helps the learner to mentally integrate the schema of the correct airway route. The difference between the groups in Chandra’s study is not only one of fidelity, but also the difference between a full-task and a part-task simulation. It is interesting that there was no difference between the groups, and we can only speculate whether there would have been a difference if the part-task group had in addition used another part-task trainer such as the virtual fiberoptic intubation part task trainer to enable deliberate practice of both component skills.
We suspect that each type of simulator has a specific role. Part task trainers may be used for learning each component of a complex task, whereas full task trainers may be used to integrate those skills before working in the clinical setting. Given that Chandra et al. found a single part task trainer to be equivalent to a full task trainer, we hypothesize that the use of complementary single task trainers has the potential to be more effective than a full task trainer in early skill acquisition for fiberoptic orotracheal intubation.
Sylvain Boet, M.D.,*
Mathew D. Bould, M.B., Ch.B., M.R.C.P., F.R.C.A.
Pierre A. Diemunsch, M.D., Ph.D.
*Hôpital de Hautepierre, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. sylvainboet@free.fr
Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Chandra DB, Savoldelli GL, Joo HS, Weiss ID, Naik VN: Fiberoptic oral intubation: The effect of model fidelity on training for transfer to patient care. Anesthesiology 2008; 109:1007–13

2. Matsumoto ED, Hamstra SJ, Radomski SB, Cusimano MD: The effect of bench model fidelity on endourological skills: A randomized controlled study. J Urol 2002; 167:1243–7

3. Friedman Z, You-Ten KE, Bould MD, Naik V: Teaching lifesaving procedures: The impact of model fidelity on acquisition and transfer of cricothyrotomy skills to performance on cadavers. Anesth Analg 2008; 107:1663–9

4. Grober ED, Hamstra SJ, Wanzel KR, Reznick RK, Matsumoto ED, Sidhu RS, Jarvi KA: The educational impact of bench model fidelity on the acquisition of technical skill: The use of clinically relevant outcome measures. Ann Surg 2004; 240:374–81

5. Wightman DC, Lintern G: Part-task training for tracking and manual control. Hum Factors 1985; 27:267–83

6. Johnson KB, Syroid ND, Drews FA, Ogden LL, Strayer DL, Pace NL, Tyler DL, White JL, Westenskow DR: Part Task and variable priority training in first-year anesthesia resident education: A combined didactic and simulation-based approach to improve management of adverse airway and respiratory events. Anesthesiology 2008; 108:831–40

7. Boet S, Naik VN, Diemunsch PA: Virtual simulation training for fibreoptic intubation. Can J Anaesth 2009; 56:87–8

© 2009 American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc.

Publication of an advertisement in Anesthesiology Online does not constitute endorsement by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc. or Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. of the product or service being advertised.
Login

Article Tools

Share