Medical emergency education using a robot patient in a dental setting

Abstract

Introduction In an ageing society, the frequency of medical emergencies in a dental setting appears to be increasing because of a growing number of medically compromised patients. However, we currently have no dental‐specific simulation environment with advanced reproducibility for medical emergencies. Therefore, we used the robot patient in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) for testing student competence in emergency management. This study aimed to evaluate student responses to medical emergencies in the dental setting. Material and Methods We used 98 fifth‐grade dental students at Showa University as subjects and implemented the OSCE task entitled ‘Management of medical emergency using a robot patient’. Candidates were asked to manage an emergency situation immediately after local anaesthesia, with one robot patient configured to develop vasovagal syncope and the other to experience adrenaline hypersensitivity. A questionnaire on the educational value of the robot patient was completed after the examination. Results Thirty‐two per cent of students could not accurately count her pulse because of an inappropriate method. Moreover, 78% could not correctly attach either the tonometer or pulse oximetry to the patient. Accurate diagnoses were given by only 22% of students, with vasovagal syncope diagnosed by 33% and adrenaline hypersensitivity by 8%. From a questionnaire, 78% of students recognised the usefulness of the robot patient in medical emergency training. Conclusion We found that student responses to the emergency situation were poor. The robot patient is useful in dental education for medical emergency training and assessment not only for situation management but also for differential diagnosis.

A Tale of Two Teaching Methods: Students' Clinical Perspectives on Administering Dental Local Anesthetics

“…Theme 1 emphasized this finding, which provided us with a deeper understanding of how students perceived the value of being on the receiving end of LA and that the sensation of feeling numbed could have made their transition to clinical practice easier. 24 We view this as a potential future opportunity to provide real-life learning experience to students without reallife risks in the dental setting. These findings were consistent with the results of studies by Hossaini and Kuscu et al 9,21 The manikin simulation models are static, which are far from being realistic.…”

An Emergency Simulation Course in a Postdoctoral General Dentistry Program: The New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine Experience

“…After Jarabak's article published in 1968, 20 Tan and Brooks-Buza et al described the use of human patient simulators in emergency training in pediatric advanced dental education, 21,22 and Newby et al and Tanzawa et al described simulation emergency training in predoctoral dental education. 23,24 These studies used student or resident questionnaires to assess educational utility and reported student responses in support of simulation training in emergency management education. Kalsi et al's survey study of emergency simulation training for oral and maxillofacial surgery residents found improvements in personal limitations, recognition of critical illness, communication, assessing acutely ill patients, initiating treatment, and BLS skills.…”

Educational effects using a robot patient simulation system for development of clinical attitude

“…The results of the investigation suggested that SIMROID was a sufficient educational system to consider pain and treatment safety during practice . Tanzawa et al reported that the robot patient was useful in portraying physical conditions from its facial expressions, physical appearance and communication for medical emergency education. The requirements of a dental treatment practice are to evaluate the physical condition as well as the oral condition through a patient's expression or appearance.…”

“…8 However, in the traditional mannequin, it is impossible to manage dental treatment and to practice while seeing the expression or condition of the patient because there is no information from it. 9 For the results of the consideration or pain during the abutment preparation, because SIMROID had a significantly higher score (2 times) than CLINSIM, it can be a better choice. The consideration for treatment safety during the practical clinical trial had the same results as for physical pain.…”