The effectiveness of digital microscopy as a teaching tool in medical laboratory science curriculum

Abstract

A fundamental component to the practice of Medical Laboratory Science (MLS) is the microscope. While traditional microscopy (TM) is gold standard, the high cost of maintenance has led to an increased demand for alternative methods, such as digital microscopy (DM). Slides embedded with blood specimens are converted into a digital form that can be run with computer driven software. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of digital microscopy as a teaching tool in the field of Medical Laboratory Science. Participants reviewed known study slides using both traditional and digital microscopy methods and were assessed using both methods. Participants were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 performed TM as the primary method and DM as the alternate. Group 2 performed DM as the primary and TM as the alternate. Participants performed differentials with their primary method, were assessed with both methods, and then performed differentials with their alternate method. A detailed assessment rubric was created to determine the accuracy of student responses through comparison of clinical laboratory and instructor results. Student scores were reflected as a percentage correct from these methods. This assessment was done over two different classes. When comparing results between methods for each, independent of the primary method used, results were not statistically different. However, when comparing methods between groups, Group 1 (n = 11) (TM = 73.79% +/- 9.19, DM = 81.43% +/- 8.30; paired t10 = 0.182, p < 0.001) showed a significant difference from Group 2 (n = 14) (TM = 85.64% +/- 5.30, DM = 85.91% +/- 7.62; paired t13 = 3.647, p = 0.860). In the subsequent class, results between both groups (n = 13, n = 16, respectively) did not show any significant difference between groups (Group 1 TM = 86.38% +/- 8.17, Group 1 DM = 88.69% +/- 3.86; paired t12 = 1.253, p = 0.234; Group 2 TM = 86.75% +/- 5.37, Group 2 DM = 86.25% +/- 7.01, paired t15 = 0.280, p = 0.784). The data suggest that DM is comparable to TM. DM could be used as an enhancement model after foundational information was provided using TM.