DEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE ECG APPLICATION TO IMPROVE ECG INTERPRETATION SKILLS OF GENERAL PRACTITIONERS AND MEDICAL STUDENTS

Rizki Amalia Gumilang; Anis Fuad; Vita Arfiana Nurul Fatimah; Shofuro Hasana; Orisativa Kokasih; Putrika Prastuti Ratna Gharini

doi:10.22146/jpki.62977

DEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE ECG APPLICATION TO IMPROVE ECG INTERPRETATION SKILLS OF GENERAL PRACTITIONERS AND MEDICAL STUDENTS

https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.62977

Rizki Amalia Gumilang⁽¹⁾, Anis Fuad⁽²⁾, Vita Arfiana Nurul Fatimah⁽³⁾, Shofuro Hasana⁽⁴⁾, Orisativa Kokasih⁽⁵⁾, Putrika Prastuti Ratna Gharini^(6*)

(1) Universitas Gadjah Mada
(2) Universitas Gadjah Mada
(3) Universitas Gadjah Mada,
(4) Universitas Gadjah Mada
(5) Universitas Gadjah Mada,
(6) Universitas Gadjah Mada
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Background: Electrocardiogram (ECG) has become a crucial examination in the management of cardiac emergencies. Accordingly, improvement of ECG interpretation skills is mandatory for general practitioners as the front-liners in emergency cases. The Mobile ECG application was developed as mobile learning media to facilitate continuing improvement of ECG interpretation skills.

Aims: This study aimed to investigate the impact of the Mobile ECG application toward ECG interpretation skills of general practitioners and medical students and evaluate its usability.

Methods: A pilot quasi-experimental study was conducted in a 1-week timeframe using webinar and the Mobile ECG application. Subjects were recruited through consecutive sampling. They met the following criteria: 1) registered as general practitioners or medical students, 2) completed the basic ECG pre and post-tests, and 3) agreed to participate in the study. The Mobile ECG is a web-based application which consists of modules, quizzes, and gallery of ECG interpretations. Pre and post-test analysis and system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire were used to evaluate the impact and usability of the application.

Results: A total of 252 subjects were recruited and 80.2% were general practitioners. There was a significant increase in post-test scores compared to pre-test (p=0.000) for all subjects. General practitioners significantly gained more score increment than medical students (1.08 vs 0.16, p=0.001). Based on the SUS score of 67.5, the application was marginally accepted by the users.

Conclusion: To conclude, the implementation of the Mobile ECG application did improve basic ECG interpretation skills. According to the SUS score, this application still needs improvement.

Keywords

ECG learning media; ECG interpretation skills; Mobile ECG application; System usability scale evaluation.

Full Text:

PDF

References

Hall JE. The Normal Electrocardiogram. In: Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology. 13th ed. Philadelphia; 2016. p. 131–7. ________________________________________________ 2. Reichlin T, Abächerli R, Twerenbold R, Kühne M, Schaer B, Müller C, et al. Advanced ECG in 2016: is there more than just a tracing? Swiss Med Wkly. 2016;146(April):w14303. _______________________________________________ 3. Hussain A. Electrocardiogram interpretation: an exploration of knowledge and practice among secondary care hospital’s emergency physicians. Clin Cardiol Cardiovasc Med. 2017;1(1):1–4. ________________________________________________ 4. Pontes PAI, Chaves RO, Castro RC, De Souza ÉF, Seruffo MCR, Francês CRL. Educational software applied in teaching electrocardiogram: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018. ________________________________________________ 5. Berger JS, Eisen L, Nozad V, D’Angelo J, Calderon Y, Brown DL, et al. Competency in electrocardiogram interpretation among internal medicine and emergency medicine residents. Am J Med. 2005;118(8):873–80. ________________________________________________ 6. Jablonover RS, Lundberg E, Zhang Y, Stagnaro-Green A. Competency in electrocardiogram interpretation among graduating medical students. Teach Learn Med. 2014;26(3):279–84. ________________________________________________ 7. Willemsen LMEWRTA, Stoffers KTSKHEJH. Interpretations of and management actions following electrocardiograms in symptomatic patients in primary care : a retrospective dossier study. 2019;498–505. ________________________________________________ 8. Simonsohn AB, Fischer MR. Evaluation eines fallbasierten computergestützten lernsystems (CASUS) im klinischen studienabschnitt. Dtsch Medizinische Wochenschrift. 2004;129(11):552–6. ________________________________________________ 9. Nilsson M, Bolinder G, Held C, Johansson BL, Fors U, Östergren J. Evaluation of a web-based ECG-interpretation programme for undergraduate medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2008;8(February). ________________________________________________ 10. Fent G, Gosai J, Purva M. Teaching the interpretation of electrocardiograms: Which method is best’. J Electrocardiol [Internet]. 2015;48(2):190–3. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2014.12.014 ________________________________________________ 11. Sharfina Z, Santoso HB. An Indonesian Adaptation of the System Usability Scale ( SUS ). In: ICACSIS (International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems). Malang: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.; 2016. p. 145–8. ________________________________________________ 12. Set T, Aktürk Z, Büyüklü M, Cansever Z. Improving electrocardiogram interpreting skills among primary care physicians in Turkey. 2012;42(6):1028–32. ________________________________________________ 13. Sturman N, Tan Z, Turner J. “A steep learning curve”: junior doctor perspectives on the transition from medical student to the health-care workplace. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):1–7. ________________________________________________ 14. Zeng R, Yue R, Tan C, Wang Q, Kuang P, Tian P, et al. New ideas for teaching electrocardiogram interpretation and improving classroom teaching content. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015;99. ________________________________________________ 15. Bangor A, Staff T, Kortum P, Miller J, Staff T. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J usability Stud. 2009;4(3):114–23.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.62977