Validity of direct ophthalmoscopy skill evaluation with ocular fundus examination simulators

• Published in: Canadian journal of ophthalmology Vol. 49; no. 4; pp. 377 - 381
• Main Authors: Akaishi, Yu, MD, Otaki, Junji, MD, DMedSc, Takahashi, Osamu, MD, MPH, PhD, Breugelmans, Raoul, MA, Kojima, Kimiko, MD, Seki, Masayasu, MD, Komoda, Takayuki, MEd, Nagata-Kobayashi, Shizuko, MD, PhD, Izumi, Miki, MD, PhD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Inc 01.08.2014
• Subjects: Adult; Clinical Competence - standards; Computer Simulation; Cross-Sectional Studies; Educational Measurement - methods; Female; Fundus Oculi; General Practitioners; Humans; Internal Medicine; Internship and Residency; Male; Middle Aged; Ophthalmology; Ophthalmology - education; Ophthalmoscopy - standards; Patient Simulation; Physical Examination - standards; Pupil - physiology; Students, Medical; Surveys and Questionnaires; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0008-4182; 1715-3360
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2014.06.001

Abstract Objective We examined how direct ophthalmoscopy (DO) skills can be evaluated in a clinical setting using a simulator, and determined the appropriate assessment criteria for the DO skills in practical tests such as the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). Design Cross-sectional study. Participants Medical students, residents, and attending physicians (73 total participants). Methods We selected the following 3 factors that may indicate the ability to perform nonmydriatic direct funduscopy: ( i ) experience: total number of cases examined (without mydriasis); ( ii ) frequency: number of cases examined during the previous month; and ( iii ) range: viewable fundus field range. We used a fundus simulator with 3-level adjustable pupil sizes (2, 3.5, and 5 mm) and created original test slides for use in the simulator. We counted the number of correct answers of each participant for each pupil size using the simulator and test slides. Results There were significant differences in the median number of correct answers for pupil diameters of 2 ( p = 0.008) and 3.5 mm ( p = 0.007) among groups divided according to the total number of cases examined (without mydriasis). There were no significant differences among groups divided according to the viewable fundus field range (2 mm: p = 0.103, 3.5 mm: p = 0.083, 5 mm: p = 0.347). Conclusions The results suggest a possible relation between the surrogate indicators “experience” and “range” and DO skills using a fundus simulator. The surrogate indicator experience showed a strong relation to DO skills using a fundus simulator.