Natan Cramer1, Lauren Cantwell2, Hilary Ong3,4, Shyam M Sivasankar2,5, Danielle Graff6, Simone L Lawson3, Paria M Wilson7,8, Kathleen A Noorbakhsh1, Megan Mickley9, Noel S Zuckerbraun1, Brad Sobolewski7,8, Jane K Soung1, Devora B Azhdam1, Desiree N Wagner Neville1, Mark R Hincapie1, Jennifer R Marin1. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine Stanford University School of Medicine Palo Alto California USA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine and Trauma Services Children's National Hospital Washington DC USA. 4. Present address: Department of Emergency Medicine UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital San Francisco California USA. 5. Dell Medical School Department of Pediatrics Austin Texas USA. 6. Division of Emergency Medicine Department of Pediatrics Norton Children's Hospital University of Louisville School of Medicine Louisville Kentucky USA. 7. Department of Pediatrics University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati Ohio USA. 8. Division of Emergency Medicine Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati Ohio USA. 9. Section of Pediatric Emergency Medicine Department of Pediatrics Children's Hospital Colorado Aurora Colorado USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to survey pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) leaders and fellows regarding point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training in PEM fellowship programs, including teaching methods, training requirements, and applications taught. Secondary objectives were to compare fellows' and program leaders' perceptions of fellow POCUS competency and training barriers. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of U.S. PEM fellows and fellowship program leaders of the 78 fellowship programs using two online group-specific surveys exploring five domains: program demographics; training strategies and requirements; perceived competency; barriers, strengths, and weaknesses of POCUS training; and POCUS satisfaction. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent (65/78) of programs and 53% (298/558) of fellows responded. All participating PEM fellowship programs included POCUS training in their curriculum. Among the 65 programs, 97% of programs and 92% of programs utilized didactics and supervised scanning shifts as educational techniques, respectively. Sixty percent of programs integrated numerical benchmarks and 49% of programs incorporated real-time, hands-on demonstration as training requirements. Of the 19 POCUS applications deemed in the literature as core requirements for fellows, at least 75% of the 298 fellows reported training in 13 of those applications. Although less than half of fellows endorsed competency for identifying intussusception, ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis, and transvaginal pregnancy evaluation, a higher proportion of leaders reported fellows as competent for these applications (40% vs. 68%, p ≤ 0.001; 21% vs. 39%, p = 0.003; and 21% vs. 43%, p ≤ 0.001). Forty-six percent of fellows endorsed a lack of PEM POCUS evidence as a training barrier compared to 31% of leaders (p = 0.02), and 39% of leaders endorsed a lack of local financial support as a training barrier compared to 23% of fellows (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although most PEM fellowship programs provide POCUS training, there is variation in content and requirements. Training does conform to many of the expert recommended guidelines; however, there are some discrepancies and perceived barriers to POCUS training remain.
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to survey pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) leaders and fellows regarding point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training in PEM fellowship programs, including teaching methods, training requirements, and applications taught. Secondary objectives were to compare fellows' and program leaders' perceptions of fellow POCUS competency and training barriers. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of U.S. PEM fellows and fellowship program leaders of the 78 fellowship programs using two online group-specific surveys exploring five domains: program demographics; training strategies and requirements; perceived competency; barriers, strengths, and weaknesses of POCUS training; and POCUS satisfaction. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent (65/78) of programs and 53% (298/558) of fellows responded. All participating PEM fellowship programs included POCUS training in their curriculum. Among the 65 programs, 97% of programs and 92% of programs utilized didactics and supervised scanning shifts as educational techniques, respectively. Sixty percent of programs integrated numerical benchmarks and 49% of programs incorporated real-time, hands-on demonstration as training requirements. Of the 19 POCUS applications deemed in the literature as core requirements for fellows, at least 75% of the 298 fellows reported training in 13 of those applications. Although less than half of fellows endorsed competency for identifying intussusception, ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis, and transvaginal pregnancy evaluation, a higher proportion of leaders reported fellows as competent for these applications (40% vs. 68%, p ≤ 0.001; 21% vs. 39%, p = 0.003; and 21% vs. 43%, p ≤ 0.001). Forty-six percent of fellows endorsed a lack of PEM POCUS evidence as a training barrier compared to 31% of leaders (p = 0.02), and 39% of leaders endorsed a lack of local financial support as a training barrier compared to 23% of fellows (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although most PEM fellowship programs provide POCUS training, there is variation in content and requirements. Training does conform to many of the expert recommended guidelines; however, there are some discrepancies and perceived barriers to POCUS training remain.
Authors: Michael B Heller; Diku Mandavia; Vivek S Tayal; Evelyn E Cardenas; Michael J Lambert; James Mateer; Scott W Melanson; Nathan P Peimann; David W Plummer; Sarah A Stahmer Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Zoe D Howard; Vicki E Noble; Keith A Marill; Dana Sajed; Marcio Rodrigues; Bianca Bertuzzi; Andrew S Liteplo Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2013-08-12 Impact factor: 1.484