Jarrod M Mosier1, Josh Malo2, Lori A Stolz3, John W Bloom2, Nathaniel A Reyes2, Linda S Snyder2, Srikar Adhikari3. 1. Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy and Sleep, Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, 1501 N Campbell Ave, Tucson, AZ 85721; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Arizona, 1609 N. Warren Ave, Tucson, AZ 85724. Electronic address: jmosier@aemrc.arizona.edu. 2. Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy and Sleep, Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, 1501 N Campbell Ave, Tucson, AZ 85721. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Arizona, 1609 N. Warren Ave, Tucson, AZ 85724.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to describe the current state of bedside ultrasound use and training among critical care (CC) training programs in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of all program directors for Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited programs during the 2012 to 2013 academic year in CC medicine, surgical CC, pulmonary and critical care, and anesthesia CC. Availability, current use, and barriers to training in CC ultrasound were assessed. RESULTS: Sixty of 195 (31%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24%-38%) program directors responded. Most of the responding programs had an ultrasound system available for use (54/60, 90%; 95% CI, 79%-96%) and identified ultrasound training as useful (59/60, 98%; 95% CI, 91%-100%) but lacked a formal curriculum (25/60, 42%; 95% CI, 29%-55%) or trained faculty (mean percentage of faculty trained in ultrasound: pulmonary and critical care, 25%; surgical CC, 33%; anesthesia CC, 20%; CC medicine, 7%), and relied on informal teaching (45/60, 77%; 95% CI, 62%-85%). Faculty with expertise (53/60, 88%; 95% CI, 77%-95%), simulation training (60/60, 100%; 95% CI, 94%-100%), establishing and meeting required number of examinations (47/60, 78%; 95% CI, 66%-88%), and regular review sessions (49/60, 82%; 95% CI, 70%-90%) were identified as necessary to improve ultrasound training. Most responding programs (32/35 91%; 95% CI, 77%-98%) without a formal curriculum plan to create one in the next 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified deficiencies in current training, suggesting a need for a formal curriculum for bedside ultrasound training in CC fellowship programs.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to describe the current state of bedside ultrasound use and training among critical care (CC) training programs in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of all program directors for Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited programs during the 2012 to 2013 academic year in CC medicine, surgical CC, pulmonary and critical care, and anesthesia CC. Availability, current use, and barriers to training in CC ultrasound were assessed. RESULTS: Sixty of 195 (31%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24%-38%) program directors responded. Most of the responding programs had an ultrasound system available for use (54/60, 90%; 95% CI, 79%-96%) and identified ultrasound training as useful (59/60, 98%; 95% CI, 91%-100%) but lacked a formal curriculum (25/60, 42%; 95% CI, 29%-55%) or trained faculty (mean percentage of faculty trained in ultrasound: pulmonary and critical care, 25%; surgical CC, 33%; anesthesia CC, 20%; CC medicine, 7%), and relied on informal teaching (45/60, 77%; 95% CI, 62%-85%). Faculty with expertise (53/60, 88%; 95% CI, 77%-95%), simulation training (60/60, 100%; 95% CI, 94%-100%), establishing and meeting required number of examinations (47/60, 78%; 95% CI, 66%-88%), and regular review sessions (49/60, 82%; 95% CI, 70%-90%) were identified as necessary to improve ultrasound training. Most responding programs (32/35 91%; 95% CI, 77%-98%) without a formal curriculum plan to create one in the next 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified deficiencies in current training, suggesting a need for a formal curriculum for bedside ultrasound training in CC fellowship programs.
Authors: Allison C Young; Christine Butts; Bennett P deBoisblanc; Richard S Tejedor; Stephen P Kantrow; Matthew R Lammi Journal: ATS Sch Date: 2022-01-28
Authors: Jonathan Wong; Steven Montague; Paul Wallace; Kay Negishi; Andrew Liteplo; Jennifer Ringrose; Renee Dversdal; Brian Buchanan; Janeve Desy; Irene W Y Ma Journal: Ultrasound J Date: 2020-04-19
Authors: Delia L Gold; Jennifer R Marin; Demetris Haritos; L Melissa Skaugset; Jennifer M Kline; Rachel M Stanley; David P Way; David P Bahner Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2017-08-29
Authors: Felippe Leopoldo Dexheimer Neto; Juliana Mara Stormovski de Andrade; Ana Carolina Tabajara Raupp; Raquel da Silva Townsend; Fabiana Gabe Beltrami; Hélène Brisson; Qin Lu; Paulo de Tarso Roth Dalcin Journal: J Bras Pneumol Date: 2015 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.624
Authors: Vi Am Dinh; Paresh C Giri; Inimai Rathinavel; Emilie Nguyen; David Hecht; Ihab Dorotta; H Bryant Nguyen; Ara A Chrissian Journal: Crit Care Res Pract Date: 2015-08-05