Adaptation of a hands‐on veterinary surgical training course from a traditionally taught laboratory to a remotely taught laboratory during a global pandemic Academic Article uri icon

abstract

  • OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate and report details of a remotely taught surgical laboratory. STUDY DESIGN: Observational. SAMPLE POPULATION: Second-year veterinary students (n = 143) enrolled in a surgical laboratory; 9 weeks were taught traditionally, and 6 weeks were taught remotely. METHODS: Because of the global pandemic, remote laboratories were developed and delivered. Students performed surgical procedures in model organs remotely while being observed by and receiving feedback from instructors on an internet-based video platform. Methods for remote surgical teaching were explored, and successes and challenges were detailed. Surveys were administered to the students and faculty to gather perspectives on their experience and subsequent confidence. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 81 of 143 (57%) students and seven of seven (100%) instructors. The mean overall student satisfaction score (1 not at all satisfied, 10 very satisfied) for in-person instruction was 8.2, and the mean score for remote instruction was 6.2 (P < .001). Overall, the instructors had a mean satisfaction score of 8 for in-person laboratories and a mean satisfaction score of 6 for remotely taught laboratories. Most students had a perception of greater one-on-one instructor attention in remote laboratories. Students reported similar confidence levels for three surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: The described remote teaching method resulted in the perception of greater instructor attention given to students. Student and instructor satisfaction was lower with remote teaching than with in-person teaching. IMPACT: The described method of remote teaching may be applied to teaching surgical students in settings when face-to-face instruction cannot be achieved and may be developed further to create an experience equivalent to face-to-face instruction.

altmetric score

  • 0.25

author list (cited authors)

  • Mankin, K., Cornell, K., Peycke, L., Dickerson, V., & Scallan, E.

citation count

  • 0

publication date

  • February 2021

publisher