Benjamin Beduhn, Sebastian Schoneich, William Saunders, Marie Claire O'Dwyer, Scott Kelley, Ryan Tucker, Juana Nicoll Capizzano
{"title":"Point-of-Care Ultrasound Track in an Academic Family Medicine Department.","authors":"Benjamin Beduhn, Sebastian Schoneich, William Saunders, Marie Claire O'Dwyer, Scott Kelley, Ryan Tucker, Juana Nicoll Capizzano","doi":"10.22454/PRiMER.2024.363716","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly being employed in family medicine. Residency tracks can be an effective way to increase mastery in a specific subdiscipline for interested residents, but no studies exist on the implementation of a POCUS track in family medicine. We address this gap in the literature by assessing POCUS use by POCUS track residents compared to non-POCUS track residents and faculty in an academic family medicine department.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective review of all POCUS scans completed in the first year after implementation of a family medicine residency POCUS track. Scans were analyzed by two reviewers. We compared scan volume and type between POCUS track residents, non-POCUS track residents, and faculty. A blinded quality analysis was performed on each group of scans.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 572 scans were completed on 536 patients over 1 year. POCUS track residents scanned significantly more than non-POCUS track residents (mean difference of 72.2, CI 59.1 to 85.4; <i>P</i><.0001). The most common scan types across groups were musculoskeletal and soft tissue. POCUS track residents showed statistically improved scan quality in all scan types, while non-POCUS track residents showed statistical improvement only in soft tissue, shoulder, and abdominal aortic aneurysm scans.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first longitudinal study of a novel academic family medicine residency POCUS track. Participation in a POCUS track can increase the number, variety, and quality of scans performed. Our curriculum can be a model for family medicine residency programs that wish to provide robust POCUS training.</p>","PeriodicalId":74494,"journal":{"name":"PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)","volume":"8 ","pages":"41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11377073/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22454/PRiMER.2024.363716","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly being employed in family medicine. Residency tracks can be an effective way to increase mastery in a specific subdiscipline for interested residents, but no studies exist on the implementation of a POCUS track in family medicine. We address this gap in the literature by assessing POCUS use by POCUS track residents compared to non-POCUS track residents and faculty in an academic family medicine department.
Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all POCUS scans completed in the first year after implementation of a family medicine residency POCUS track. Scans were analyzed by two reviewers. We compared scan volume and type between POCUS track residents, non-POCUS track residents, and faculty. A blinded quality analysis was performed on each group of scans.
Results: A total of 572 scans were completed on 536 patients over 1 year. POCUS track residents scanned significantly more than non-POCUS track residents (mean difference of 72.2, CI 59.1 to 85.4; P<.0001). The most common scan types across groups were musculoskeletal and soft tissue. POCUS track residents showed statistically improved scan quality in all scan types, while non-POCUS track residents showed statistical improvement only in soft tissue, shoulder, and abdominal aortic aneurysm scans.
Conclusions: This is the first longitudinal study of a novel academic family medicine residency POCUS track. Participation in a POCUS track can increase the number, variety, and quality of scans performed. Our curriculum can be a model for family medicine residency programs that wish to provide robust POCUS training.