Zac Feilchenfeld1, Tim Dornan2,3, Cynthia Whitehead4,5, Ayelet Kuper1,5. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Centre for Medical Education, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. 3. School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. The Wilson Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in clinical care is growing rapidly and advocates have recently proposed the integration of ultrasound into undergraduate medical education (UME). The evidentiary basis for this integration has not been evaluated critically or systematically. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a critical and systematic review framed by the rationales enumerated in academic publications by advocates of ultrasound in UME. METHODS: This research was conducted in two phases. First, the dominant discursive rationales for the integration of ultrasound in UME were identified from an archive of 403 academic publications using techniques from Foucauldian critical discourse analysis (CDA). We then sought empirical evidence in support of these rationales, using a critical synthesis methodology also adapted from CDA. RESULTS: We identified four dominant discursive rationales with different levels of evidentiary support. The use of ultrasound was not demonstrated to improve students' understanding of anatomy. The benefit of ultrasound in teaching physical examination was inconsistent and rests on minimal evidence. With POCUS, students' diagnostic accuracy was improved for certain pathologies, but findings were inconsistent for others. Finally, the rationale that ultrasound training in UME will improve the quality of patient care was difficult to evaluate. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis has shown that the frequently repeated rationales for the integration of ultrasound in UME are not supported by a sufficient base of empirical research. The repetition of these dominant discursive rationales in academic publications legitimises them and may preclude further primary research. As the value of clinical ultrasound use by medical students remains unproven, educators must consider whether the associated financial and temporal costs are justified or whether more research is required.
CONTEXT: The use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in clinical care is growing rapidly and advocates have recently proposed the integration of ultrasound into undergraduate medical education (UME). The evidentiary basis for this integration has not been evaluated critically or systematically. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a critical and systematic review framed by the rationales enumerated in academic publications by advocates of ultrasound in UME. METHODS: This research was conducted in two phases. First, the dominant discursive rationales for the integration of ultrasound in UME were identified from an archive of 403 academic publications using techniques from Foucauldian critical discourse analysis (CDA). We then sought empirical evidence in support of these rationales, using a critical synthesis methodology also adapted from CDA. RESULTS: We identified four dominant discursive rationales with different levels of evidentiary support. The use of ultrasound was not demonstrated to improve students' understanding of anatomy. The benefit of ultrasound in teaching physical examination was inconsistent and rests on minimal evidence. With POCUS, students' diagnostic accuracy was improved for certain pathologies, but findings were inconsistent for others. Finally, the rationale that ultrasound training in UME will improve the quality of patient care was difficult to evaluate. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis has shown that the frequently repeated rationales for the integration of ultrasound in UME are not supported by a sufficient base of empirical research. The repetition of these dominant discursive rationales in academic publications legitimises them and may preclude further primary research. As the value of clinical ultrasound use by medical students remains unproven, educators must consider whether the associated financial and temporal costs are justified or whether more research is required.
Authors: Richard A Hoppmann; Jeanette Mladenovic; Lawrence Melniker; Radu Badea; Michael Blaivas; Miguel Montorfano; Alfred Abuhamad; Vicki Noble; Arif Hussain; Gregor Prosen; Tomás Villen; Gabriele Via; Ramon Nogue; Craig Goodmurphy; Marcus Bastos; G Stephen Nace; Giovanni Volpicelli; Richard J Wakefield; Steve Wilson; Anjali Bhagra; Jongyeol Kim; David Bahner; Chris Fox; Ruth Riley; Peter Steinmetz; Bret P Nelson; John Pellerito; Levon N Nazarian; L Britt Wilson; Irene W Y Ma; David Amponsah; Keith R Barron; Renee K Dversdal; Mike Wagner; Anthony J Dean; David Tierney; James W Tsung; Paula Nocera; José Pazeli; Rachel Liu; Susanna Price; Luca Neri; Barbara Piccirillo; Adi Osman; Vaughan Lee; Nitha Naqvi; Tomislav Petrovic; Paul Bornemann; Maxime Valois; Jean-Francoise Lanctot; Robert Haddad; Deepak Govil; Laura A Hurtado; Vi Am Dinh; Robert M DePhilip; Beatrice Hoffmann; Resa E Lewiss; Nayana A Parange; Akira Nishisaki; Stephanie J Doniger; Paul Dallas; Kevin Bergman; J Oscar Barahona; Ximena Wortsman; R Stephen Smith; Craig A Sisson; James Palma; Mike Mallin; Liju Ahmed; Hassan Mustafa Journal: Ultrasound J Date: 2022-07-27
Authors: Irene W Y Ma; Peter Steinmetz; Kirstin Weerdenburg; Michael Y Woo; Paul Olszynski; Claire L Heslop; Stephen Miller; Gillian Sheppard; Vijay Daniels; Janeve Desy; Maxime Valois; Luke Devine; Heather Curtis; Michael J Romano; Patrick Martel; Tomislav Jelic; Claude Topping; Drew Thompson; Barbara Power; Jason Profetto; Pete Tonseth Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 2.153