NCT07659145

Brief Summary

The goal of this study is to evaluate whether remote asynchronous feedback is non-inferior to direct synchronous feedback during simulation-based training for ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block performance. The main questions it aims to answer are: Does asynchronous feedback achieve technical skill acquisition outcomes comparable to direct synchronous feedback? Can asynchronous feedback optimize teaching resources without compromising training quality? Researchers will compare two feedback modalities within a simulation-based training program for deliberate practice of ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block techniques. Participants will: Receive training with either direct synchronous feedback or remote asynchronous feedback Perform simulation-based deliberate practice sessions Be assessed using validated instruments for technical skill performance

Trial Health

77
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
40

participants targeted

Target at P25-P50 for not_applicable

Timeline
8mo left

Started May 2026

Shorter than P25 for not_applicable

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
recruiting

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Progress22%
May 2026Mar 2027

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

May 28, 2026

Completed
Same day until next milestone

Study Start

First participant enrolled

May 28, 2026

Completed
25 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

June 22, 2026

Completed
6 months until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

December 27, 2026

Expected
3 months until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

March 27, 2027

Last Updated

June 22, 2026

Status Verified

May 1, 2026

Enrollment Period

7 months

First QC Date

May 28, 2026

Last Update Submit

June 16, 2026

Conditions

Keywords

Procedural skillsDistance-based simulationsimulation-based trainingfeedback

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

  • Performance assessment

    The PRE and POST assessments were videotaped for evaluation by 2 independent and blinded reviewers. The simulation center staff recorded the assessment videos for a standard vision of the participant's hands and the ultrasound image. Two reviewers rated each resident's performance using an specific GRS previously validated. The reviewers were different from the instructors.

    8 weeks

Secondary Outcomes (1)

  • ICSAD measurement

    8 weeks

Study Arms (2)

Synchronous direct feedback (SYNC)

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

The control group practiced with synchronous direct feedback (SYNC). The SYNC group attended the simulation laboratory for practice sessions. Residents were scheduled to practice with the instructor in a one-to-one ses- sion. The instructor was present during all the sessions and gave instructions and feedback in real time throughout all sessions (traditional face-to-face feedback modality).

Other: Synchronous direct feedback

Asynchronous distance feedback (ASYNC).

EXPERIMENTAL

The experimental group practiced with asynchronous distance feedback (ASYNC). Residents scheduled their sessions and attended the simulation laboratory alone. The resident logged in to the C1DO1 platform.The student recorded himself, performing the observed technique. The instructor was not present and provided feedback asynchronously via a C1DO1 platform. The ASYNC included texts, audio recordings, drawings annotating the trainee's video, and short example error videos from a library. In addition to the specific feedback in response to residents' videos, instructors also provided an objective assessment based on scores using a 9-item global rating scale (GRS). The student reviewed their feedback in the platform and identified the skills to improve for the next session.

Other: Asynchronous distance feedback

Interventions

The experimental group practiced with ASYNC. Residents sched- uled their sessions and attended the simulation laboratory alone. The resident logged in to the C1DO1 platform. In the platform, the second 4 stages were practical exercises. The student recorded himself, performing the observed technique.9 The instructor was not present and provided feedback asynchronously via a C1DO1 platform. The ASYNC included texts, audio recordings, drawings annotating the trainee's video, and short example error videos from a library. In addition to the specific feedback in response to residents' videos, instructors also provided an objective assessment based on scores using a 9-item global rating scale (GRS). The student reviewed their feedback in the platform and identified the skills to improve for the next session.

Asynchronous distance feedback (ASYNC).

The control group practiced with SYNC. The SYNC group attended the simulation laboratory for practice sessions. Residents were scheduled to practice with the instructor in a one-to-one ses- sion. The instructor was present during all the sessions and gave instructions and feedback in real time throughout all sessions (traditional face-to-face feedback modality).

Synchronous direct feedback (SYNC)

Eligibility Criteria

Sexall
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsChild (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

  • Medicine students

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile

Santiago, Santiago Metropolitan, 7700950, Chile

RECRUITING

Related Publications (2)

  • Miranda PF, Araneda AL, Molina NP, Miranda FG, Morrison C, Corvetto MA, Altermatt FR. Simulated-based training for ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block: determining the learning curve and transference to real patient. Adv Simul (Lond). 2025 Nov 11;10(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s41077-025-00389-5.

    PMID: 41219804BACKGROUND
  • Corvetto MA, Kattan E, Ramirez G, Besa P, Abbott E, Zamorano E, Contreras V, Altermatt FR. Simulation-Based Training Program for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Placement: Randomized Comparative Study of in-Person Training With Synchronous Feedback Versus Distance Training With Asynchronous Feedback. Simul Healthc. 2024 Dec 1;19(6):373-378. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000805. Epub 2024 Jun 17.

    PMID: 38888993BACKGROUND

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
SINGLE
Who Masked
INVESTIGATOR
Masking Details
The video assessment will be done by 2 blinded instructors (blinded to the group assignment of participants)
Purpose
OTHER
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Model Details: Researchers will compare two feedback modalities within a simulation-based training program for deliberate practice of ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block techniques.
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

May 28, 2026

First Posted

June 22, 2026

Study Start

May 28, 2026

Primary Completion (Estimated)

December 27, 2026

Study Completion (Estimated)

March 27, 2027

Last Updated

June 22, 2026

Record last verified: 2026-05

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will not share

Locations