Search

Objectives: Emergency ultrasound (EUS) is a critical component of emergency medicine (EM) resident education. Currently, there is no consensus list of competencies for EUS training, and graduating residents have varying levels of skill and comfort. The objective of this study was to define a widely accepted comprehensive list of EUS competencies for graduating EM residents through a modified Delphi method. Methods: We developed a list of EUS applications through a comprehensive literature search, the American College of Emergency Physicians list of core EUS benchmarks, and the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency-Academy of Emergency Ultrasound consensus document. We assembled a multi-institutional expert panel including 15 faculty members from diverse practice environments and geographical regions. The panel voted on the list of competencies through two rounds of a modified Delphi process using a modified Likert scale (1 = not at all important, 5 = very important) to determine levels of agreement for each application--with revisions occurring between the two rounds. High agreement for consensus was set at >80%. Results: Fifteen of 15 panelists completed the first-round survey (100%) that included 359 topics related to EUS. After the first round, 195 applications achieved high agreement, four applications achieved medium agreement, and 164 applications achieved low agreement. After the discussion, we removed three questions and added 13 questions. Fifteen of 15 panelists completed the second round of the survey (100%) with 209 of the 369 applications achieving consensus. Conclusion: Our final list represents expert opinion on EUS competencies for graduating EM residents. We hope to use this consensus list to implement a more consistent EUS curriculum for graduating EM residents and to standardize EUS training across EM residency programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To develop a consensus statement on the use of lung ultrasound (LUS) in the assessment of symptomatic general medical inpatients with known or suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Methods: Our LUS expert panel consisted of 14 multidisciplinary international experts. Experts voted in 3 rounds on the strength of 26 recommendations as "strong," "weak," or "do not recommend." For recommendations that reached consensus for do not recommend, a fourth round was conducted to determine the strength of those recommendations, with 2 additional recommendations considered. Results: Of the 26 recommendations, experts reached consensus on 6 in the first round, 13 in the second, and 7 in the third. Four recommendations were removed because of redundancy. In the fourth round, experts considered 4 recommendations that reached consensus for do not recommend and 2 additional scenarios; consensus was reached for 4 of these. Our final recommendations consist of 24 consensus statements; for 2 of these, the strength of the recommendations did not reach consensus. Conclusions: In symptomatic medical inpatients with known or suspected COVID‐19, we recommend the use of LUS to: (1) support the diagnosis of pneumonitis but not diagnose COVID‐19, (2) rule out concerning ultrasound features, (3) monitor patients with a change in the clinical status, and (4) avoid unnecessary additional imaging for patients whose pretest probability of an alternative or superimposed diagnosis is low. We do not recommend the use of LUS to guide admission and discharge decisions. We do not recommend routine serial LUS in patients without a change in their clinical condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Thoracic ultrasound is frequently used in the emergency department (ED) to determine the etiology of dyspnea, yet its use is not widespread in the prehospital setting. We sought to investigate the feasibility and diagnostic performance of paramedic acquisition and assessment of thoracic ultrasound images in the prehospital environment, specifically for the detection of B-lines in congestive heart failure (CHF). Methods: This was a prospective observational study of a convenience sample of adult patients with a chief complaint of dyspnea. Paramedics participated in a didactic and hands-on session instructing them how to use a portable ultrasound device. Paramedics assessed patients for the presence of B-lines. Sensitivity and specificity for the presence of bilateral B-lines and any B-lines were calculated based on discharge diagnosis. Clips archived to the ultrasound units were reviewed and paramedic interpretations were compared to expert sonologist interpretations. Results: A total of 63 paramedics completed both didactic and hands-on training, and 22 performed ultrasounds in the field. There were 65 patients with B-line findings recorded and a discharge diagnosis for analysis. The presence of bilateral B-lines for diagnosis of CHF yielded a sensitivity of 80.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 51.4-94.7%) and specificity of 72.0% (95% CI, 57.3-83.3), while presence of any B-lines was 93.3% sensitive (95% CI, 66.0-99.7%), and 50% specific (95% CI, 35.7-64.2%) for CHF. Paramedics archived 117 ultrasound clips of which 63% were determined to be adequate for interpretation. Comparison of paramedic and expert sonologist interpretation of images showed good inter-rater agreement for detection of any B-lines (k = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.84). Conclusion: This observational pilot study suggests that prehospital lung ultrasound for B-lines may aid in identifying or excluding CHF as a cause of dyspnea. The presence of bilateral B-lines as determined by paramedics is reasonably sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of CHF and pulmonary edema, while the absence of B lines is likely to exclude significant decompensated heart failure. The study was limited by being a convenience sample and highlighted some of the difficulties related to prehospital research. Larger funded trials will be needed to provide more definitive data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: An increasing number of medical schools are incorporating point‐of‐care ultrasound (POCUS) into preclinical and clinical curricula. The ultimate effect of this teaching is unclear, and there has been no distinct link between ultrasound (US) learning and existing standardized student assessments. Additionally, neither optimal timing nor methods of POCUS integration have been established. We aimed to demonstrate the effect of US teaching on standardized objective assessments that already exist within the curriculum and, in doing so, discern a route for POCUS curricular integration. Methods: A longitudinal POCUS pilot curriculum was started in 2013, with the class of 2017. We collected basic science course results, standardized objective structured clinical examination scores, and United States Medical Licensing Examination step 1 scores from both the pilot group (n = 34) and matched control participants (n = 34) from the classes of 2017 and 2018. Scores between POCUS students and controls were analyzed by Student t tests. Results: Students participating in the longitudinal POCUS program scored significantly higher on the physical examination portion of their clinical skill objective structured clinical examination assessment than the control group (mean score, 89.2 versus 85.7; P < .05). This parameter was the only area with a statistically significant difference. Conclusions: Point‐of‐care US program implementation may improve students' overall physical examination understanding and performance, even when US performance itself is not being tested. Introducing a POCUS curriculum may work best when designed in conjunction with the physical examination thread of a medical school curriculum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author presents his views on concept of developing a point-of-care ultrasound contest for medical students.

Objectives: Gamification is a powerful tool in medical education. SonoGames is a competitive games‐based event designed to educate and inspire emergency medicine (EM) residents about point‐of‐care ultrasound. We sought to describe: (1) the perceived effectiveness of a competitive event on both immediate learning and long‐term education; and (2) the resultant attitudes of participants and program directors regarding ultrasound training. Methods: The SonoGames Organizational Committee designed 2 surveys: 1 for SonoGames V EM resident participants and a second for EM program directors. Survey questions used a 5‐point Likert scale to assess overall perceptions and attitudes about ultrasound, changes in self‐reported content knowledge and competency, effects on clinical use, and perceived impacts of a competitive game format on education. Results: Seventy‐three resident participants and 42 program directors responded to the survey. Ninety‐four percent of participants thought that the competitive gaming format of SonoGames was effective in making the event an educational experience. Participants reported that their ultrasound knowledge increased (81%), their enthusiasm for ultrasound increased (87%), and their clinical use of ultrasound increased (61%). Residency program directors reported similar increases to a lesser degree. Greater advancement through the event was associated with more positive responses. Residencies that participated in the event saw greater increases in the use of ultrasound by residents than those that did not. Conclusions: A competitive games‐based educational event focused on point‐of‐care ultrasound is an effective educational tool. SonoGames increases EM residents' knowledge, enthusiasm, and clinical use of ultrasound both during and after the event. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On Recommending Specific Lung Ultrasound Protocols in the Assessment of Medical Inpatients with Known or Suspected Coronavirus Disease-19 Reply Correlation between chest computed tomography and lung ultrasonography in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Lung ultrasound score predicts outcomes in COVID-19 patients admitted to the emergency department. [Extracted from the article]