Critical Ultrasound Journal

Although emergency ultrasound (EU) is gaining popularity, EU is performed in a minority of emergency departments (EDs). The perception may exist that EU is too time-consuming. This study sought to determine the duration of EUs performed for the primary indications by staff emergency physicians (EPs). A prospective, time–motion study was conducted on a convenience sample of EUs at the Sudbury Regional Hospital ED from June to August 2006. All EPs had Canadian EU certification. A research assistant timed EUs. Primary EU indications in Canada are: cardiac arrest evaluation, rule-out pericardial effusion, rule-out intraperitoneal free fluid in trauma, rule-out abdominal aortic aneurysm, and rule-in intrauterine pregnancy. Descriptive statistics are reported. Eleven EPs performed 66 EUs for the primary indications on 51 patients. The mean EU duration was 137.8 s (range 11–465; CI 123.0–162.6). There was no difference in the duration of EUs performed by the two most experienced EPs (n = 37; duration = 129.4; CI = 96.4–162.4) compared to the other EPs (n = 29; duration = 148.4; CI = 110.6–186.2). Although subgroups were small, positive (n = 8; duration = 199.4; CI = 97.4–301.4), negative (n = 49; duration = 123.3; CI = 97.9–148.7), and indeterminate (n = 9; duration = 161.6; CI = 91.5–231.7) EUs did not differ in duration. There is some suggestion of differences in duration between types of EU, although again the subgroups were small: cardiac (n = 21; duration = 90.3; CI = 62.6–118.0), abdominal (n = 22; duration = 157.1; CI = 111.9–202.3), aneurysm (n = 15; duration = 170.1; CI = 117.5–222.7), transabdominal pelvic (n = 5; duration = 89.8; CI = 40.3–139.1), transvaginal (n = 3; duration = 246.0; CI = 30.6–461.4). When performed by staff EPs with EU certification, mean EU duration for the primary indications was brief regardless of EP’s experience, EU type, or results.

Focused bedside ultrasound is rapidly becoming a standard of care to decrease the risks of complications related to invasive procedures. The purpose of this study was to assess whether adding to the curriculum of junior residents an educational intervention combining web-based e-learning and hands-on training would improve the residents’ proficiency in different clinical applications of bedside ultrasound as compared to using the traditional apprenticeship teaching method alone. Junior residents (n = 39) were provided with two educational interventions (vascular and pleural ultrasound). Each intervention consisted of a combination of web-based e-learning and bedside hands-on training. Senior residents (n = 15) were the traditionally trained group and were not provided with the educational interventions. After the educational intervention, performance of the junior residents on the practical tests was superior to that of the senior residents. This was true for the vascular assessment (94% ± 5% vs. 68% ± 15%, unpaired student t test: p < 0.0001, mean difference: 26 (95% CI: 20 to 31)) and even more significant for the pleural assessment (92% ± 9% vs. 57% ± 25%, unpaired student t test: p < 0.0001, mean difference: 35 (95% CI: 23 to 44)). The junior residents also had a significantly higher success rate in performing ultrasound-guided needle insertion compared to the senior residents for both the transverse (95% vs. 60%, Fisher’s exact test p = 0.0048) and longitudinal views (100% vs. 73%, Fisher’s exact test p = 0.0055). Our study demonstrated that a structured curriculum combining web-based education, hands-on training, and simulation integrated early in the training of the junior residents can lead to better proficiency in performing ultrasound-guided techniques compared to the traditional apprenticeship model.