That's why EMERGE found this article on the design of medical training simulators so fascinating. Published in today's issue of the New York Times Science section, the article explores not just the work of Dr. Carla Pugh, but the broader issues of medical necessity, social propriety, and institutional inertia in the training of new physicians.
A pelvic exam simulator combining a 3D model with a computer image
It turns out that many young doctors complete medical school without an adequate familiarity with the myriad form those awkward bits of human anatomy can take, leaving them ill equipped to conduct potentially life-saving testicular, breast, and pelvic exams. Doctors, like the rest of us, are a little weirded out by fondling their patients genitals, and some schools have even drawn criticism for training students on anesthetized patients- sometimes without their consent. Enter Dr. Pugh, who jury rigs anatomical models to train her students. She simulates tumors in her artificial breasts with a lima bean, builds synthetic scrotums using wood balls, rubber bands, a large condom and peanut butter, and even constructed a "vaginal vault" from cardboard toilet paper roll, Play-Doh and a badminton shuttlecock.
If the idea of doctor's training on what sound like high school science fair projects seems a little alarming, don't fret. The article quotes a surgical pioneer called Dr. Richard M Satava who explains how simple models like Dr. Pugh's are in fact preferable: "A very sophisticated simulator would be too much for a student. For simple tasks like a pelvic exam, a simple simulator like Carla's is actually preferable. You don't teach a teenager to drive in a million-dollar Ferrari."
Posted by James Friedman
