| Literature DB >> 22863138 |
Christian Alcaraz Frederiksen1, Peter Juhl-Olsen, Dorte Guldbrand Nielsen, Berit Eika, Erik Sloth.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies addressing teaching and learning in point-of-care ultrasound have primarily focussed on image interpretation and not on the technical quality of the images. We hypothesized that a limited intervention of 10 supervised examinations would improve the technical skills in Focus Assessed Transthoracic Echocardiography (FATE) and that physicians with no experience in FATE would quickly adopt technical skills allowing for image quality suitable for interpretation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22863138 PMCID: PMC3477018 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-12-65
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Figure 1Actual examples of image quality before and after intervention. Upper left panel: Apical 4-chamber view at baseline. Upper right panel: Apical 4-chamber view at evaluation. Lower left panel: Parasternal long axis view at baseline. Lower right panel: Parasternal long axis view at evaluation.
Detailed description of aspects in the image analysis
| Highest possible score was 5, one point was deducted for each of the errors in probe orientation mentioned below. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rotation | Angulation | Tilt | Thoracic position | |
| Highest possible score was 5, one or two points were deducted upon suboptimal sector as mentioned below. | ||||
| Small depth error | Large depth error | Small angle error | Large angle error | |
| (1 point) | (2 points) | (1 point) | (2 points) | |
| Highest possible score was 3, points were deducted as mentioned below. | ||||
| Small undergain | Large undergain | Small overgain | Large overgain | |
| (1 point) | (2 points) | (1 point) | (2 points) | |
| A score of 1 to 5 was given based on the scale below. | ||||
| 1: No visible myocardium | 2: Barely visible myocardium | 3: Fairly visible myocardium | 4: Visible Myocardium and endocardium | 5: Perfect presentation of myo- and endocardium |
| A score of 1 to 5 was given based on the scale below. A score of 3 was perceived as minimum for images suitable for interpretation. | ||||
| 1: No interpretation possible | 2: Uncertain interpretation possible | 3: Rough interpretation possbile | 4: Interpretation possible | 5: Interpretation and measurement possible |
Detailed results from the image analysis
| 3.40 | 4.01 | 2.69 | 3.72 | 3.70 | |
| 3.21-3.59 | 3.84-4.17 | 2.60-2.80 | 3.56-3.88 | 3.50-3.89 | |
| 3.68 | 4.50 | 2.80 | 3.81 | 3.96 | |
| 3.50-3.86 | 4.38-4.62 | 2.70-2.89 | 3.68-3.94 | 3.78-4.14 | |
| 0.002 | <0.0001 | 0.086 | 0.25 | 0.008 | |
Figure 2Scatter plot showing the relationship between visual spatial ability measured by a mental rotation test and mean global image rating for novices before intervention (Pearson 0.61, p = 0.0034). Middle panel: Scatter plot showing the relationship between visual spatial ability measured by a mental rotation test and mean global image rating for novices after intervention (Pearson 0.44, p = 0.047). Lower panel: Scatter plot showing the relationship between visual spatial ability measured by a mental rotation test and the percentage of correct probe orientations on baseline (Pearson 0.56, p = 0.0084).