You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Evaluation of a survey for acute care programme directors on the utilisation of point-of-care ultrasound
  1. Annie Wang1,
  2. Melissa McCabe1,
  3. Esther Gow-Lee1,
  4. Stephanie James1,
  5. Briahnna Austin1,
  6. Dustin Wailes1,
  7. Vi Dinh2,
  8. Davinder Ramsingh1
  1. 1 Department of Anesthesiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, USA
  2. 2 Department of Emergency Medicine, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Melissa McCabe, Department of Anesthesiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA 92354, USA; mmccabe{at}llu.edu

Abstract

Purpose Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is ultrasound brought to the patient’s bedside and performed in ‘real time’ by the healthcare provider. The utility of POCUS to facilitate management of the acutely ill patient has been demonstrated for multiple pathologies. However, the integration of ultrasonography and echocardiography training into residency curriculum varies across the acute care specialties.

Study design After an institutional review board approval, anaesthesiology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, paediatrics and general surgery programme directors (PDs) were surveyed. The survey consisted of 11 questions evaluating the primary bedside assessment tool for common acute care situations, POCUS topics that the PDs were comfortable practising and topics that the PDs felt were useful for their specialty. Barriers to POCUS use, certification and documentation were also surveyed.

Results Overall, 270 PD surveys were completed. The preferred primary assessment tool for common acute care situations varied with specialty; emergency medicine PDs consistently responded that POCUS was the diagnostic modality of choice (p<0.0001). The majority of the PDs reported lack of educational opportunities as the primary barrier to learning POCUS (64%). Most PDs indicated that POCUS examinations should be documented (95.7%), and 39% reported that departmental certification would be sufficient.

Conclusions This study is the first to evaluate differences in the preferred initial bedside assessment tool between the acute care specialties. Although POCUS is a superior tool for evaluating acute pathologies, disconnect between education and utilisation remains. This study highlights the need to incorporate POCUS into the acute care specialty curriculum.

  • ultrasonography
  • medical education & training
  • echocardiography
  • general medicine (see internal medicine)
  • adult anaesthesia
  • adult surgery

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2021-140127

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors AW—data curation, formal analysis, writing (original draft preparation) and writing (review and editing). MM—conceptualisation, methodology, formal analysis, writing (original draft preparation), writing (review and editing) and supervision. EG-L—formal analysis, writing (original draft preparation) and writing (review and editing). SJ—formal analysis, writing (original draft preparation) and writing (review and editing). BA—conceptualisation, methodology, formal analysis and writing (original draft preparation). DW—conceptualisation, methodology, formal analysis and writing (original draft preparation). VD—conceptualisation, methodology and writing (original draft preparation). DR—conceptualisation, methodology, formal analysis, writing (original draft preparation), writing (review and editing) and supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.