Skip to main content

Part of the book series: IFMBE Proceedings ((IFMBE,volume 60))

Abstract

This paper aims to measure what the students’ perceived learning outcome achievements are after finishing medical devices courses I and II. This is a pre- post-test with no control group study design. Twenty-four students doing medical devices courses I and II with a test in the simulation center of a Biomedical Engineering Program participated in this pilot study. A paper-based survey composed of a demographic and 5-point Likert (“1” is strongly disagree and “5” is strongly agree) measured the students’ perceived learning outcome achievements after exposing them to medical devices courses. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney U Test statistics were conducted to test the two hypotheses of this study. Our analysis showed statistically significant results between the pre-survey sum mean and SD: 7.50, 1.31; and between the post-survey mean and SD: 8.56, 1.15, p=0.015, indicating the students’ perceived learning outcome achievements after putting them through medical devices courses I and II had significantly improved by the end of the courses. Also, no statistically significant results were found between the post-survey mean and SD: 4.37, 0.57 learning outcome perceptions or between the students’ actual marks mean and SD: 4.58, 0.18, p=0.28), indicating no differences between what the students perceived they had learned compared with what they had really learned.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ACCE, “American College of Clinical Engineering,” 1992. [Online]. Available: http://accenet.org/about/Documents/What’s_a_Clinical_Engineer.pdf. [Accessed 09 March 2016].

  2. J. Nagel, “Protocol for the training of clinical engineers in Europe,” BIOMEDEA PROJECT, Stuttgart, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  3. HTF, “2013 Candidate Handbook for Certification in Clinical Engineering by the Healthcare Technology Certification Commission,” Healthcare Technology Certification Commission, Plymouth, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  4. G. H. Buck, “Development of simulators in medical education,” Gesnerus : Swiss Journal of the history of medicine and sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 7-28, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M. Koretsky, C. Kelly and E. Gummer, “Student Perceptions of Learning in the Laboratory: Comparison of Industrially Situated Virtual Laboratories to Capstone Physical Laboratories,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 540 - 573, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  6. G. Alinier, B. Hunt, R. Gordon and C. Harwood, “Effectiveness of intermediate-fidelity simulation training technology in undergraduate nursing education,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 359-369, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  7. I. Gieras, P. Sherman and D. Minsent, “Patient Safety Trilogy: Perspectives from Clinical Engineering,” Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 137-142, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  8. D. E. a. H. B. A. Ziv, “38 - Clinical Simulation on a National Level: Israel,” in Clinical Simulation, Oxford, Academic Press, 2008, pp. 371-375.

    Google Scholar 

  9. R. J. Glavin, “37 - A National Simulation Center Influences Teaching at a National Level: Scotland,” in Clinical Simulation, Oxford, Academic Press, 2008, pp. 365-370.

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Mönk, J. Vollmer and W. Heinrichs, “34 - A National Simulation Program: Germany,” in Clinical Simulation, Oxford, Academic Press, 2008, pp. 345-353.

    Google Scholar 

  11. A. Miguel-Cruz, A. Rios-Rincon, W. Rodríguez-Dueñas, N. Florez-Luna and D. Quiroga-Torres, “What is the effect of an introductory biomedical engineering course on the students’ perceptions of the engineering profession?,” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 32, p. 136–149, 1(A) 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Biggs, Teaching for Quality Learning At University, Berkshire: England: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 2003, p. 54.

    Google Scholar 

  13. I. Motola, L. A. Devine, H. Soo Chung, J. E. Sullivan and B. Issenberg, “Simulation in healthcare education: A best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 82,” Medical Teacher, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. e1511-e1530, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  14. L. Portney and M. Watkins, Foundations of Clinical Research:Applications to Practice, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2008, pp. 421-422.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Miguel Cruz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper

Quiroga Torres, D.A., Presiga, A.M., Flórez Luna, N., Cruz, A.M. (2017). Teaching maintenance of medical devices in simulation centers: a pilot study. In: Torres, I., Bustamante, J., Sierra, D. (eds) VII Latin American Congress on Biomedical Engineering CLAIB 2016, Bucaramanga, Santander, Colombia, October 26th -28th, 2016. IFMBE Proceedings, vol 60. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4086-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4086-3_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4085-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4086-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics