Emma M Bowcock1, Idunn S Morris2, Anthony S Mclean1, Sam R Orde1. 1. Intensive Care Unit, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessment of competence in basic critical care echocardiography is complex. Competence relies on not only imaging accuracy but also interpretation and appropriate management decisions. The experience to achieve these skills, real-time, is likely more than required for imaging accuracy alone. We aimed to assess the feasibility of using simulation to assess number of studies required to attain competence in basic critical care echocardiography. METHODS: This is a prospective pilot study recruiting trainees at various degrees of experience in basic critical care echocardiography using experts as reference standard. We used high fidelity simulation to assess speed and accuracy using total time taken, total position difference and total angle difference across the basic acoustic windows. Interpretation and clinical application skills were assessed using a clinical scenario. 'Cut-off' values for number of studies required for competence were estimated. RESULTS: Twenty-seven trainees and eight experts were included. The subcostal view was achieved quickest by trainees (median 23 s, IQR 19-37). Eighty-seven percent of trainees did not achieve accuracy across all views; 81% achieved accuracy with the parasternal long axis and the least accurate was the parasternal short axis (44% of trainees). Fewer studies were required to be considered competent with imaging acquisition compared with competence in correct interpretation and integration (15 vs. 40 vs. 50, respectively). DISCUSSION: The use of echocardiography simulation to determine competence in basic critical care echocardiography is feasible. Competence in image acquisition appears to be achieved with less experience than correct interpretation and correct management decisions. Further studies are required.
BACKGROUND: Assessment of competence in basic critical care echocardiography is complex. Competence relies on not only imaging accuracy but also interpretation and appropriate management decisions. The experience to achieve these skills, real-time, is likely more than required for imaging accuracy alone. We aimed to assess the feasibility of using simulation to assess number of studies required to attain competence in basic critical care echocardiography. METHODS: This is a prospective pilot study recruiting trainees at various degrees of experience in basic critical care echocardiography using experts as reference standard. We used high fidelity simulation to assess speed and accuracy using total time taken, total position difference and total angle difference across the basic acoustic windows. Interpretation and clinical application skills were assessed using a clinical scenario. 'Cut-off' values for number of studies required for competence were estimated. RESULTS: Twenty-seven trainees and eight experts were included. The subcostal view was achieved quickest by trainees (median 23 s, IQR 19-37). Eighty-seven percent of trainees did not achieve accuracy across all views; 81% achieved accuracy with the parasternal long axis and the least accurate was the parasternal short axis (44% of trainees). Fewer studies were required to be considered competent with imaging acquisition compared with competence in correct interpretation and integration (15 vs. 40 vs. 50, respectively). DISCUSSION: The use of echocardiography simulation to determine competence in basic critical care echocardiography is feasible. Competence in image acquisition appears to be achieved with less experience than correct interpretation and correct management decisions. Further studies are required.
Entities:
Keywords:
Critical care echocardiography; basic echo; competency; echo training; simulation
Authors: Paul H Mayo; Yannick Beaulieu; Peter Doelken; David Feller-Kopman; Christopher Harrod; Adolfo Kaplan; John Oropello; Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Olivier Axler; Daniel Lichtenstein; Eric Maury; Michel Slama; Philippe Vignon Journal: Chest Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Kirk T Spencer; Bruce J Kimura; Claudia E Korcarz; Patricia A Pellikka; Peter S Rahko; Robert J Siegel Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Rob C Tanzola; Sam Walsh; Wilma M Hopman; Devin Sydor; Ramiro Arellano; Rene V Allard Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 5.063
Authors: Christopher B Chisholm; William R Dodge; Ray R Balise; Sarah R Williams; Laleh Gharahbaghian; Anne-Sophie Beraud Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2013-01-22 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Jacques Neelankavil; Kimberly Howard-Quijano; Tyken C Hsieh; Davinder Ramsingh; Jennifer C Scovotti; Jason H Chua; Jonathan K Ho; Aman Mahajan Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2012-07-19 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Philippe Vignon; Benjamin Pegot; François Dalmay; Vanessa Jean-Michel; Simon Bocher; Erwan L'her; Jérôme Cros; Gwenaël Prat Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Wangari Waweru-Siika; Anders Barasa; Benjamin Wachira; David Nekyon; Barbara Karau; Fatimah Juma; Grace Wanjiku; Harun Otieno; Gerald S Bloomfield; Erik Sloth Journal: Afr J Emerg Med Date: 2020-06-19