Adrian Wong1, Laura Galarza2, Frantisek Duska3. 1. Intensive Care Unit, King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 2. Intensive Care Unit, Hospital General Universitari de Castelló, Castelló de la Plana, Spain. 3. Intensive Care Unit, Third Faculty Medicine, Charles University Prague, Czech Republic.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Critical care ultrasonography has become established within ICUs as a diagnostic tool and to guide management strategies and practical procedures. Following an international consensus statement in 2011, various national professional societies and organizations have sought to develop and deliver training program. The aim of this review was to assess the similarities and differences among these postgraduate intensive care/critical care training program. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was performed in two steps. First, we searched medical databases and national societies' websites for documents meeting predefined inclusion criteria. If not found, professionals related to critical care ultrasonography were contacted. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted independently by two authors. Analyses were conducted on general training requirements as well as specific competencies defined in the documents. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight national program from seven countries were identified from a total of 25 countries; all identified program have defined competencies for core critical care ultrasonography. Although there were common themes across these program, significant variations in training requirements and assessments existed, for example, number of scans required for echocardiography training ranged from 10 to 100. Furthermore, the specifics of each ultrasound module varied between program. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread and increasing use of ultrasound in ICUs, the majority of countries lacked a formal training program and clearly defined competencies. Even among the countries where these are available, there remains variability. There is a need to better define the competencies required in core critical care ultrasonography and standardize the assessment process.
OBJECTIVES: Critical care ultrasonography has become established within ICUs as a diagnostic tool and to guide management strategies and practical procedures. Following an international consensus statement in 2011, various national professional societies and organizations have sought to develop and deliver training program. The aim of this review was to assess the similarities and differences among these postgraduate intensive care/critical care training program. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was performed in two steps. First, we searched medical databases and national societies' websites for documents meeting predefined inclusion criteria. If not found, professionals related to critical care ultrasonography were contacted. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted independently by two authors. Analyses were conducted on general training requirements as well as specific competencies defined in the documents. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight national program from seven countries were identified from a total of 25 countries; all identified program have defined competencies for core critical care ultrasonography. Although there were common themes across these program, significant variations in training requirements and assessments existed, for example, number of scans required for echocardiography training ranged from 10 to 100. Furthermore, the specifics of each ultrasound module varied between program. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread and increasing use of ultrasound in ICUs, the majority of countries lacked a formal training program and clearly defined competencies. Even among the countries where these are available, there remains variability. There is a need to better define the competencies required in core critical care ultrasonography and standardize the assessment process.
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: Adrian Wong; Laura Galarza; Lui Forni; Daniel De Backer; Michael Slama; Bernard Cholley; Paul Mayo; Anthony McLean; Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Daniel Lichtenstein; Giovanni Volpicelli; Robert Arntfield; Ignacio Martin-Loeches; Gizella Melania Istrate; František Duška Journal: Crit Care Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Felipe González-Seguel; Juan José Pinto-Concha; Francisco Ríos-Castro; Alexis Silva-Gutiérrez; Agustín Camus-Molina; Kirby P Mayer; Selina M Parry Journal: Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl Date: 2021-07-13
Authors: Nilam J Soni; Robert Nathanson; Mark Andreae; Rahul Khosla; Karthik Vadamalai; Karthik Kode; Jeremy S Boyd; Charles M LoPresti; Dana Resop; Zahir Basrai; Jason Williams; Brian Bales; Harald Sauthoff; Erin Wetherbee; Elizabeth K Haro; Natalie Smith; Michael J Mader; Jacqueline Pugh; Erin P Finley; Christopher K Schott Journal: Ultrasound J Date: 2022-05-12