Simulation is accepted as an effective method of learning procedural skills. However, the translational outcomes of skills acquired through simulation still warrants investigation. We designed this study to assess if skills laboratory training in addition to bedside learning (intervention group [IG]) would provide better learning results than bedside learning alone (control group [CG]) in the context of venipuncture training. This prospective, cluster-randomized, single-blind study took place at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. Seventeen clusters of second-year medical students were randomly assigned to either IG or CG. The IG trained on venipuncture in the skills laboratory, receiving instruction after modified Payton's Four Step Method. Following the training, students of both IG and CG underwent bedside learning for one month. Afterward, students of both groups performed venipuncture on actual patients in a clinical setting. An independent, blinded assessor scored students' performance using the Integrated Procedural Protocol Instrument (IPPI) and a checklist. Patients assessed students' performance with the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). Eight and nine clusters were randomized to the intervention and control groups, respectively. IG completed significantly more single steps of the procedure correctly (IG: 19.36 ± 3.87 for checklist items; CG: 15.57 ± 4.95; p < 0.001). IG also scored significantly better on IPPI ratings (median: IG: 27 (12) vs. CG: 21 (8); p < 0.001). Rated by patients, students' communication skills did not significantly differ between the two groups. Simulation-based venipuncture training enabled students to perform the procedure on actual patients with a higher technical accuracy than students who learned venipuncture at the bedside. Students were able to transfer the skills acquired through venipuncture training at the skill laboratory to the bedside.

中文翻译：

---

医学本科生静脉穿刺的程序模拟及其转移到床边：一项整群随机研究。

模拟被认为是学习程序技能的有效方法。然而，通过模拟获得的技能的转化结果仍然值得研究。我们设计这项研究是为了评估在静脉穿刺训练的背景下，除了床边学习（干预组[IG]）之外的技能实验室培训是否会比单独的床边学习（对照组[CG]）提供更好的学习结果。这项前瞻性、整群随机、单盲研究在斯里兰卡凯拉尼亚大学医学院进行。十七组二年级医学生被随机分配到 IG 或 CG。IG 在技能实验室接受静脉穿刺培训，接受修改后的佩顿四步法指导。培训结束后，IG和CG的学员进行了为期1个月的床边学习。随后，两组学生在临床环境中对实际患者进行静脉穿刺。独立、盲法评估员使用综合程序协议工具 (IPPI) 和检查表对学生的表现进行评分。患者使用沟通评估工具（CAT）评估学生的表现。八组和九组分别被随机分配到干预组和对照组。IG 正确完成程序的单个步骤明显更多（IG：检查表项目为 19.36 ± 3.87；CG：15.57 ± 4.95；p < 0.001）。IG 在 IPPI 评级上的得分也明显更高（中位数：IG：27 (12) 对比 CG：21 (8)；p < 0.001）。根据患者的评分，两组学生的沟通技巧没有显着差异。基于模拟的静脉穿刺培训使学生能够在实际患者身上进行手术，其技术准确性比在床边学习静脉穿刺的学生更高。学生能够将在技能实验室静脉穿刺培训中获得的技能转移到临床。