Guided, motor, and mental imagery adjuncts to teaching central venous access

Sydney Cryder; Stephen Jensen; Joseph McCarthy; Kristen Whitworth; Gabrielle E Kennelley; Andrew S Nowak; Matthew K Hysell

doi:10.1002/aet2.10867

Guided, motor, and mental imagery adjuncts to teaching central venous access

AEM Educ Train. 2023 Apr 11;7(2):e10867. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10867. eCollection 2023 Apr.

Authors

Sydney Cryder¹, Stephen Jensen¹, Joseph McCarthy¹, Kristen Whitworth¹, Gabrielle E Kennelley², Andrew S Nowak², Matthew K Hysell¹

Affiliations

¹ Graduate Medical Education Department, Emergency Medicine Residency Corewell Health South St. Joseph Michigan USA.
² Department of Medical Education Central Michigan University College of Medicine Mt. Pleasant Michigan USA.

Abstract

Background: Mental, motor, and guided imagery techniques are commonly used in sports psychology, but less often in medical education. Utilization of imagery-based techniques (IBTs) in combination with traditional teaching methods may provide a low-cost, innovative approach to improving outcomes in graduate medical education.

Objective: The objective was to assess whether medical students demonstrate greater proficiency in the ability to obtain central venous access in simulation trainers following exposure to guided, mental, and motor imagery teaching methods in comparison to traditional methods.

Methods: Volunteer fourth-year medical students during their emergency medicine rotation were randomly assigned to two groups, traditional plus imagery teaching or traditional teaching alone. The control group watched a video tutorial on central line placement methods. The study group watched the same video with the addition of imagery components. Participants filled out survey questions before and after the video and again after line placement. Proctors blinded to student group assignments then observed student placement of an internal jugular triple-lumen catheter on a simulation trainer and completed a standardized performance rubric.

Results: Sixty medical students participated. Two were excluded for having performed five or more lines either clinically or in a previous simulation. There was no difference in self-perceived competence in line placement prior to watching the video or in the number of lines previously performed between groups. The imagery group (n = 25) averaged 1.3 errors/need for intervention compared to 2.2 errors/need for intervention in the control group (n = 33; p = 0.045, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02 to 1.61). Time to place the line was similar-8.9 min for the control group versus 8.6 min for the imagery group (p = 0.74, 95% CI -1.39 to 1.95).

Conclusions: The use of IBTs may be a promising adjunct to traditional medical teaching of procedures in emergency medicine.