An Assessment of the Effectiveness of an in-House Designed Low-Cost Trainer for Teaching Cardiovascular Examination in Comparison to Traditional Teaching Among Novice Undergraduate Medical Students

Document Type : Brief report

Authors

1 Professor, Department of Physiology and Medical Simulation Center, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Research Institute, Sri Balaji Vidhyapeeth, Pondicherry, India

2 Associate Professor, Department of Physiology, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Research Institute, Sri Balaji Vidhyapeeth, Pondicherry, India

3 Department of Surgery and Medical Simulation Center, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Research Institute, Sri Balaji Vidhyapeeth, Pondicherry, India

4 Professor, Department of Physiology, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Kalitheerathalikuppam, Madagadipet, Puducherry, India

10.22062/sdme.2025.200941.1528
Abstract
Background: Teaching cardiovascular examination skills to large groups of undergraduate medical students poses critical challenges due to the limited availability of patients and peer practice limitations.
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an indigenous designed low-cost trainer for teaching cardiovascular examination compared to the traditional training.
Methods: A half-body CPR mannequin was upgraded to teach cardiovascular physical examination by the addition of inflatable bladders for pulsations, and a Bluetooth speaker for heart sounds. Undergraduate medical students, divided into experimental and control groups, were trained by demonstration and practice on a simulator/volunteer. A quasi-experimental study with a non-equivalent control group design was conducted to compare the outcomes of the two teaching models. Performance was assessed by Objective Structured Practical Examination (OSPE) and compared. Feedback on confidence and satisfaction was gathered. A value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: The total OSPE scores showed no significant difference between the experimental and control groups (p=0.184) [P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant]. However, the control group performed significantly better in in-patient interaction skills (p=0.008). Student feedback indicated a preference for a combination of both traditional and simulator-based teaching methods, with 43% favoring this approach. Additionally, 33% preferred traditional methods alone, while 24% chose simulator-based teaching exclusively.
Conclusion: The indigenous designed low-cost cardiovascular examination trainer demonstrated comparable effectiveness to traditional teaching methods in skill acquisition. It offers a cost-effective alternative for large-scale medical education, though additional emphasis on patient interaction skills is placed while simulators are used. Student preferences suggest that a blended approach, combining both traditional and simulator-based methods, may be optimal for teaching cardiovascular examination skills.

Highlights

Sobana Ramanathan: (Google Scholar) (PubMed)

Niveatha Santhanakrishnan: (Google Scholar) (PubMed)

Dinker Ramananda Pai: (Google Scholar) (PubMed)

Nalini Yelahanka Channegowda: (Google Scholar) (PubMed)

Keywords


1.  Supe A, Sheshadri GK, Singh P, Sajith KR, Chalam PV. Medical Council of India, Competency based Undergraduate curriculum for the Indian Medical Graduate. New Delhi: Med Counc India; 2018: 99-118.
2. Deswal BS, Singhal VK. Problems of medical education in India. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2016; 3(7):5. doi:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20162063.
3. Fernandez K, Singru SA, Kshirsagar M, Pathan Y. Study regarding overweight/obesity among medical students of a teaching hospital in Pune, India. Medical Journal of Dr. DY Patil University. 2014 1; 7(3):279-83. doi: 10.4103/0975-2870.128950.
4. Velou MS, Ahila E. Expectations and challenges of early clinical exposure programme for first year medical students in India. International Archives of Integrated Medicine. 2020;7(8): 59-65.
5.  Munshi F, Lababidi H, Alyousef S. Low-versus high-fidelity simulations in teaching and assessing clinical skills. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences. 2015; 10(1):12-5. doi:10.1016/j.jtumed.2015.01.008.
6.  McKinney J, Cook DA, Wood D, Hatala R. Simulation-based training for cardiac auscultation skills: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2013; 28(2): 283-91. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2198-y. PMID: 22968795 PMCID: PMC3614132]
7.  Sobana R, Pai DR, Nalini YC. In-house designed low-cost trainer for teaching cardiovascular examination. International Journal of Healthcare Simulation. 2024; SRSIS:1–3. doi:10.54531/mckd5199.
8.  Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005; 27(1):10-28. doi: 10.1080/01421590500046924. PMID: 16147767
9. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB. Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med. 2011; 86(6):706-11. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318217e119. PMID: 21512370 PMCID: PMC3102783
10. Epuitai J, Adongo PR, Oboth P, Apili F, Kumakech E, Owusu-Sekyere S, et al. Experiences and perceptions of students and faculty with clinical simulation in Uganda: an exploratory study. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25(1):746. doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07322-4. PMID: 40399862 PMCID: PMC12096515
11. Brown WJ, Tortorella RAW. Hybrid medical simulation – a systematic literature review. Smart Learning Environments. 2020;7(1):16. doi:10.1186/s40561-020-00127-6.
12. Kneebone R, Nestel D, Vincent C, Darzi A. Complexity, risk, and simulation in learning procedural skills. Med Educ. 2007; 41(8):808-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02799.x. PMID: 17661889
13. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med. 2006; 81(3): 207-12. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002. PMID: 16501260
14. Okuda Y, Bryson EO, DeMaria S, Jacobson L, Quinones J, Shen B, et al. The utility of simulation in medical education: what is the evidence? Mt Sinai J Med. 2009; 76(4): 330-43. doi: 10.1002/msj.20127. PMID: 19642147
15. Pedersen TH, Gysin J, Wegmann A, Osswald M, Ott SR, Theiler L, Greif R. A randomised, controlled trial evaluating a low cost, 3D-printed bronchoscopy simulator. Anaesthesia. 2017; 72(8):1005–1009. doi: 10.1111/anae.13951.
16. Lejus-Bourdeau C, Pousset F, Magne C, Bazin O, Grillot N, Pichenot V. Low-cost versus high-fidelity pediatric simulators for difficult airway management training: a randomized study in continuing medical education. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2023; 73(3): 250–7. doi:10.1016/j.bjane.2021.05.006.
17. Kweki AG, Tharin MS, Baptista V, Kenneth E, Rohin F, Scoote M, Howard AQ. The Impact of Simulation-Based Training in Cardiovascular Medicine: A Systematic Review. Cureus. 2023; 15(12): e50414. doi: 10.7759/cureus.50414.
18. Flores-Cohaila JA, Ñaña-Cordova AM, Rios-Garcia W, Benavente-Chalco XC, Torres-Zegarra BC, Bustamante-Ordoñez MA, et al. Low-cost simulation in health professions education: a bibliometric analysis and literature review of 20 years of research. Educ Med (Educación Médica). 2024;25:100945. doi: 10.1016/j.edumed.2024.100945.
19. Frangi D, Bardacci Y, Magi CE, El Aoufy K, Longobucco Y, Iovino P, Amato C, Balestri C, Forciniti C, Rasero L, Iozzo P. Exploring the use of low-cost simulation in nursing education: a scoping review. BMJ open. 2025;15(7):e099968. doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2025-099968.