Bedside point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly used to assess medical patients. At present, no consensus exists for what POCUS curriculum is appropriate for internal medicine residency training programs. This document details the consensus-based recommendations by the Canadian Internal Medicine Ultrasound (CIMUS) group, comprising 39 members, representing 14 institutions across Canada. Guiding principles for selecting curricular content were determined a priori. Consensus was defined as agreement by at least 80% of the members on POCUS applications deemed appropriate for teaching and assessment of trainees in the core (internal medicine postgraduate years [PGY] 1–3) and expanded (general internal medicine PGY 4–5) training programs. We recommend four POCUS applications for the core PGY 1–3 curriculum (inferior vena cava, lung B lines, pleural effusion, and abdominal free fluid) and three ultrasound-guided procedures (central venous catheterization, thoracentesis, and paracentesis). For the expanded PGY 4–5 curriculum, we recommend an additional seven applications (internal jugular vein, lung consolidation, pneumothorax, knee effusion, gross left ventricular systolic function, pericardial effusion, and right ventricular strain) and four ultrasound-guided procedures (knee arthrocentesis, arterial line insertion, arterial blood gas sampling, and peripheral venous catheterization). These recommendations will provide a framework for training programs at a national level.

BackgroundSignificant gaps currently exist in the Canadian internal medicine point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) curriculum. From a learner’s perspective, it remains unknown what key POCUS skills should be prioritized. This needs assessment study seeks to establish educational priorities for POCUS for internal medicine residents at five Canadian residency training programs.MethodsAll internal medicine trainees [postgraduate year (PGY) 1–5] from five internal medicine residency training programs in Canada (n = 598) were invited to complete an online survey on 15 diagnostic POCUS applications, 9 bedside procedures, and 18 POCUS knowledge items. For POCUS applications and procedures, participants were asked how applicable they are to patient care in internal medicine and the participants’ reported skills in those domains. Self-reported knowledge and skills were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = very poor and 5 = very good. Applicability was rated, where 1 = not at all applicable and 5 = very applicable.ResultsA total of 253 of 598 residents (42%) participated in our study. Data from one centre (n = 15) was removed because of low response rate (15%) and significant baseline differences between those trainees and the remaining participants. Of the remaining analyzable data from four training programs (n = 238), participants reported highest applicability to internal medicine for the following applications and procedures: identifying ascites/free fluid [mean applicability score of 4.9 ± standard deviation (SD) 0.4]; gross left ventricular function (mean 4.8 ± SD 0.5) and pericardial effusion (mean 4.7 ± SD 0.5); thoracentesis (mean score 4.9 ± SD 0.3), central line insertion (mean 4.9 ± SD 0.3), and paracentesis (mean 4.9 ± SD 0.3), respectively. Overall reported knowledge/skills was low, with skill gaps being the highest for identifying deep vein thrombosis (mean gap 2.7 ± SD 1.1), right ventricular strain (mean 2.7 ± SD 1.1), and gross left ventricular function (mean 2.7 ± SD 1.0).ConclusionsMany POCUS applications and procedures were felt to be applicable to the practice of internal medicine. Significant skill gaps exist in the four Canadian training programs included in the study. POCUS curriculum development efforts should target training based on these perceived skill gaps.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-018-1326-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives-To develop a consensus statement on the use of lung ultrasound (LUS) in the assessment of symptomatic general medical inpatients with known or suspected coronavirus disease 2019 .Methods-Our LUS expert panel consisted of 14 multidisciplinary international experts. Experts voted in 3 rounds on the strength of 26 recommendations as "strong," "weak," or "do not recommend." For recommendations that reached consensus for do not recommend, a fourth round was conducted to determine the strength of those recommendations, with 2 additional recommendations considered.Results-Of the 26 recommendations, experts reached consensus on 6 in the first round, 13 in the second, and 7 in the third. Four recommendations were removed because of redundancy. In the fourth round, experts considered 4 recommendations that reached consensus for do not recommend and 2 additional scenarios; consensus was reached for 4 of these. Our final recommendations consist of 24 consensus statements; for 2 of these, the strength of the recommendations did not reach consensus.Conclusions-In symptomatic medical inpatients with known or suspected COVID-19, we recommend the use of LUS to: (1) support the diagnosis of pneumonitis but not diagnose COVID-19, (2) rule out concerning ultrasound features, (3) monitor patients with a change in the clinical status, and (4) avoid unnecessary additional imaging for patients whose pretest probability of an alternative or superimposed diagnosis is low. We do not recommend the use of LUS to guide admission and discharge decisions. We do not recommend routine serial LUS in patients without a change in their clinical condition.

Background Buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) is a current first-line treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). The standard induction method of buprenorphine/naloxone requires patients to be abstinent from opioids and therefore experience withdrawal symptoms prior to induction, which can be a barrier in starting treatment. Rapid micro-induction (micro-dosing) involves the administration of small, frequent does of buprenorphine/naloxone and removes the need for a period of withdrawal prior to the start of treatment. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of rapid micro-induction versus standard induction of buprenorphine/naloxone in patients with OUD. Methods This is a randomized, open-label, two-arm, superiority, controlled trial comparing the safety and effectiveness of rapid micro-induction versus standard induction of buprenorphine/naloxone for the treatment of OUD. A total of 50 participants with OUD will be randomized at one Canadian hospital. The primary outcome is the completion of buprenorphine/naloxone induction with low levels of withdrawal. Secondary outcomes are treatment retention, illicit drug use, self-reported drug use behaviour, craving, pain, physical health, safety, and client satisfaction. Discussion This is the first randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness and safety of rapid micro-induction versus standard induction of buprenorphine/naloxone. This study will thereby generate evidence for a novel induction method which eliminates substantial barriers to the use of buprenorphine/naloxone in the midst of the ongoing opioid crisis. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04234191; date of registration: January 21, 2020; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04234191