Nurse Education in Practice
Volume 10, Issue 2 , Pages 70-75 , March 2010

Feasibility of a computerized male urethral catheterization simulator

  • Anna Jöud

      Affiliations

    • eHealth Institute, School of Human Sciences, University of Kalmar, Kalmar, Sweden
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +46 0 480497145.
    • ,
  • Anders Sandholm

      Affiliations

    • eHealth Institute, School of Human Sciences, University of Kalmar, Kalmar, Sweden
    • Tel.: +41 0 21 6935248.
    • ,
  • Lola Alseby

      Affiliations

    • Educational Department, Linköping University Hospital, Sweden
    • Tel.: +46 0 1354065.
    • ,
  • Göran Petersson

      Affiliations

    • eHealth Institute, School of Human Sciences, University of Kalmar, Kalmar, Sweden
    • Tel.: +46 0 48049 71 24.
    • ,
  • Gunilla Nilsson

      Affiliations

    • eHealth Institute, School of Human Sciences, University of Kalmar, Kalmar, Sweden
    • Tel.: +46 0 480446042.

,Accepted 20 March 2009.

References 

  1. Ahlberg G, Enochsson L, Gallagher AG, Hedman L, Hogman C, McClusky DA, et al. Proficiency-based virtual reality training significantly reduces the error rate for residents during their first 10 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. American Journal of Surgery. 2007;193(6):797–804
  2. Bholat OS, Haluck RS, Kutz RH, Gorman PJ, Krummel TM. Defining the role of haptic feedback in minimally invasive surgery. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 1999;62:62–66
  3. Bradley P, Postlethwaite K. Simulation in clinical learning. Medical Education. 2003;37(Suppl. 1):1–5
  4. DeCarlo D, Collingridge D, Grant C, Ventre K. Factors influencing nurses’ attitudes towards simulation-based education. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. 2008;2(3):90–96
  5. Derossis AM, Bothwell J, Sigman HH, Fried GM. The effect of practice on performance in a laparoscopic simulator. Surgical Endoscopy. 1998;12(9):1117–1120
  6. du Boulay C, Medway C. The clinical skills resource: a review of current practice. Medical Education. 1999;33(3):185–191
  7. Feingold CE, Calaluce M, Kallen MA. Computerized patient model and simulated clinical experiences: evaluation with baccalaureate nursing students. Journal of Nursing Education. 2004;43(4):156–163
  8. Gordon JA, Wilkerson WM, Shaffer DW, Armstrong EG. Practicing medicine without risk: students’ and educators’ responses to high-fidelity patient simulation. Academy of Medicine. 2001;76(5):469–472
  9. Grady JL, Kehrer RG, Trusty CE, Entin EB, Entin EE, Brunye TT. Learning nursing procedures: the influence of simulator fidelity and student gender on teaching effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Education. 2008;47(9):403–408
  10. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Hart IR, Mayer JW, Felner JM, Petrusa ER, et al. Simulation technology for health care professional skills training and assessment. JAMA. 1999;282(9):861–866
  11. 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. Medical Teacher. 2005;27(1):10–28
  12. Kneebone R, Kidd J, Nestel D, Asvall S, Paraskeva P, Darzi A. An innovative model for teaching and learning clinical procedures. Medical Education. 2002;36(7):628–634
  13. Kneebone RL, Scott W, Darzi A, Horrocks M. Simulation and clinical practice: strengthening the relationship. Medical Education. 2004;38(10):1095–1102
  14. Kneebone RL, Nestel D, Vincent C, Darzi A. Complexity, risk and simulation in learning procedural skills. Medical Education. 2007;41(8):808–814
  15. Knoll T, Trojan L, Haecker A, Alken P, Michel MS. Validation of computer-based training in ureterorenoscopy. BJU International. 2005;95(9):1276–1279
  16. Maran NJ, Glavin RJ. Low- to high-fidelity simulation – a continuum of medical education?. Medical Education. 2003;37(Suppl. 1):22–28
  17. O’Toole RV, Playter RR, Krummel TM, Blank WC, Cornelius NH, Roberts WR, et al. Measuring and developing suturing technique with a virtual reality surgical simulator. Journal of American College of Surgeons. 1999;189(1):114–127
  18. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: principles and methods. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2004;
  19. Rowe R, Cohen RA. An evaluation of a virtual reality airway simulator. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2002;95(1):62–66
  20. Rystedt H, Lindström B. Introducing simulation technologies in nurse education: a nursing practice perspective. Nurse Education in Practice. 2001;1(3):134–141
  21. Satava RM. Identification and reduction of surgical error using simulation. Minimal Invasive Therapy and Allied Technologies. 2005;14(4):257–261
  22. Savoldelli GL, Naik VN, Hamstra SJ, Morgan PJ. Barriers to use of simulation-based education. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2005;52(9):944–950
  23. Strom P, Hedman L, Sarna L, Kjellin A, Wredmark T, Fellander-Tsai L. Early exposure to haptic feedback enhances performance in surgical simulator training: a prospective randomized crossover study in surgical residents. Surgical Endoscopy. 2006;20(9):1383–1388
  24. Ursino M, Tasto JL, Nguyen BH, Cunningham R, Merril GL. CathSim: an intravascular catheterization simulator on a PC. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 1999;62:360–366
  25. Weller JM. Simulation in undergraduate medical education: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Medical Education. 2004;38(1):32–38
  26. Wenk M, Waurick R, Schotes D, Gerdes C, Van Aken HK, Popping DM. Simulation-based medical education is no better than problem-based discussions and induces misjudgment in self-assessment. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practices. 2008;
  27. Wyndaele, J.J., 2002. Complications of intermittent catheterization: their prevention and treatment. Spinal Cord 2002/09/18. Retrieved 10, 40, from <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=12235537>.

PII: S1471-5953(09)00079-1

doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2009.03.017

Nurse Education in Practice
Volume 10, Issue 2 , Pages 70-75 , March 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution