We developed an RS for assessment of UGVA competence based on opinions of ultrasound experts through a modified Delphi consensus study.
Minor emergency departments (ED) struggle to access sufficient expertise to supervise learners of lung and cardiac point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). Using tele-ultrasound (tele-US) for remote supervision may remedy this situation. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of real-time supervision via tele-US when applied to an everyday ED clinic. We conducted a mixed methods study that assessed practical feasibility, determined performance, and explored users' acceptability of supervision via tele-US. Technical performance was assessed quantitatively by the ratio in mean gray value between images on site and as received by the supervisor, and by after-compression frame rate. Qualitatively, 12 exploratory semi-structured interviews were conducted with exposed junior doctors and supervisors. Remote supervision via tele-US was performed with 10 junior doctors scanning 45 included patients. During performance assessment, neither alternating internet connection nor software significantly changed the mean gray value ratio. The lowest median frame rate of 4.6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.1-5.0) was found by using a 4G internet connection; the highest of 28.5 (IQR: 28.5-29.0) was found with alternative computer and local area network internet connection. In interviews, supervisors stressed the importance of preserving frame rate, and junior doctors emphasized a need for shared ultrasound terminology. In the qualitative analysis, setup mobility, accessibility, and time consumption were emphasized as being of key importance for future clinical implementations. Remote supervision via a commercially available and low-cost tele-US setup is operational for both junior doctors and supervisors when applied to lung and cardiac POCUS scans of hospitalized patients.
Evidence-based standards in proficiency are needed for ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous access. In this study, we explored the validity of the Peripheral Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Access (P-UGVA) Rating Scale.We recruited 3 groups of physicians (5 novices, 5 intermediates, and 5 experts) of increasing proficiency in peripheral ultrasound-guided intravenous access. All participants performed 3 peripheral ultrasound-guided intravenous accesses on three different patients. Performance was video-recorded by 3 cameras and the ultrasound image. Synchronized and anonymized split-screen film clips were rated using the P-UGVA rating scale by 2 assessors, which also assessed overall performance on a 1–5 Likert-scale. Evidence of validity was explored using the contemporary validity framework by Messick (content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences).Content and response process was ensured in the development of the rating scale and validity study. Internal consistency of the P-UGVA rating scale was excellent and sufficient high for certification purposes (Cronbach's alpha = 0.91). Proficiency groups were successfully discriminated by the UPGIVA rating scale (P = .029, one-way ANOVA), and the P-UGVA rating scale scores also correlated strongly with the overall performance evaluations (rho = 0.87, P < .001, Pearson correlation). We calculated a pass/fail score of 29, which lead to a theoretical false positive rate of 26.5% and false negative rate of 8.5%.We present validity evidence for the P-UGVA rating scale and an evidence-based standard in proficiency for ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous access.
BackgroundTrauma is a leading cause of death among adults aged < 44 years, and optimal care is a challenge. Evidence supports the centralization of trauma facilities and the use multidisciplinary trauma teams. Because knowledge is sparse on the existing distribution of trauma facilities and the organisation of trauma care in Denmark, the aim of this study was to identify all Danish facilities that care for traumatized patients and to investigate the diversity in organization of trauma management.MethodsWe conducted a systematic observational cross-sectional study. First, all hospitals in Denmark were identified via online services and clarifying phone calls to each facility. Second, all trauma care manuals on all facilities that receive traumatized patients were gathered. Third, anesthesiologists and orthopedic surgeons on call at all trauma facilities were contacted via telephone for structured interviews.ResultsA total of 22 facilities in Denmark were found to receive traumatized patients. All facilities used a trauma care manual and all had a multidisciplinary trauma team. The study found three different trauma team activation criteria and nine different compositions of teams who participate in trauma care. Training was heterogeneous and, beyond the major trauma centers, databases were only maintained in a few facilities.ConclusionThe study established an inventory of the existing Danish facilities that receive traumatized patients. The trauma team activation criteria and the trauma teams were heterogeneous in both size and composition. A national database for traumatized patients, research on nationwide trauma team activation criteria, and team composition guidelines are all called for.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-018-0486-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
BackgroundThe Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) protocol is considered beneficial in emergent evaluation of trauma patients with blunt or penetrating injury and has become integrated into the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) protocol. No guidelines exist as to the use of ultrasonography in trauma in Denmark. We aimed to determine the current use of ultrasonography for assessing trauma patients in Denmark.MethodsWe conducted a nation-wide cross-sectional investigation of ultrasonography usage in trauma care. The first phase consisted of an Internet-based investigation of existing guidelines, and the second phase was a series of structured interviews of orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, and radiologists on call in all hospitals receiving traumatized patients in Denmark.ResultsGuidelines were obtained from all 22 hospitals receiving traumatized patients in Denmark. Twenty-one (95.5%) of the guidelines included and recommended FAST as part of trauma assessment. The recommended person to perform the examination was the radiologist in n = 11 (50.0%), the surgeon in n = 6 (27.3%), the anesthesiologist in n = 1 (4.5%), and unspecified in n = 3 (13.6%) facilities. FAST indications varied between circulatory instability n = 8 (36.4%), team leader’s discretion n = 6 (27.3%), abdominal trauma n = 3 (13.6%), and not specified n = 6 (27.3%). Telephone interviews revealed that exams were always n = 8 (36.4%) or often n = 4 (18.2%) registered in the patients’ charts. The remaining n = 10 (45.5%) facilities either never registered n = 2 (9.1%), it was not possible to register n = 1 (4.5%), or unknown by the trauma leaders n = 7 (31.8%). Images were often stored in n = 1 (4.5%), never stored in n = 10 (45.5%), not possible to store in n = 2 (9.1%), and unknown in n = 9 (40.9%) facilities.ConclusionUltrasonography was used in a non-uniform fashion by multiple specialties in Danish trauma facilities. Very few images from FAST examinations were stored and documentation was scanty. National guidelines on application and documentation of ultrasonography in trauma are called for.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13089-017-0071-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.