MP47-15 POINT OF CARE ULTRASOUND IN UROLOGY: BUILDING A FEASIBLE INTRODUCTORY TRAINING PROGRAM
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologySurgical Technology & Simulation: Training & Skills Assessment II (MP47)1 Apr 2020MP47-15 POINT OF CARE ULTRASOUND IN UROLOGY: BUILDING A FEASIBLE INTRODUCTORY TRAINING PROGRAM Michael Uy*, Catherine Anne Lovatt, Jennifer Hoogenes, Carol Bernacci, and Edward D. Matsumoto Michael Uy*Michael Uy* More articles by this author , Catherine Anne LovattCatherine Anne Lovatt More articles by this author , Jennifer HoogenesJennifer Hoogenes More articles by this author , Carol BernacciCarol Bernacci More articles by this author , and Edward D. MatsumotoEdward D. Matsumoto More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000902.015AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) is a widely used bedside tool in urology. Applications include the assessment of an undifferentiated acute scrotum, renal colic, and the guidance of suprapubic catheter placement. However, the user-dependent nature of this modality necessitates appropriate use and competence. The objective of this study was to develop a feasible introductory PoCUS course for urology residents. METHODS: Urology residents of all years completed a 3-hour online course, followed by a 3-hour hands-on seminar involving kidney, bladder, and testicular sonographic scanning. Low cost simulated testicular phantoms were constructed and utilized (Figure 1). Course material was developed by licensed ultrasound technologists, based on the Sonography Canada National Competency Profiles. Pre- and post-course surveys focused on residents’ user-confidence, while pre- and post-course multiple-choice questionnaires (MCQ) assessed theoretical knowledge. RESULTS: Fourteen urology residents (n = 14) participated in the course. Theoretical knowledge in PoCUS improved significantly (p < 0.001) (Table 1). Self-rated confidence in manipulation of ultrasound controls, doppler imaging, and PoCUS of the kidney, bladder, and testicles also improved (all p < 0.001). All participants indicated that the course increased their likelihood of PoCUS use in clinical practice, and that POCUS training should be integrated into a urology training curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed and executed a feasible foundational PoCUS course for urology residents based on national ultrasound training guidelines. Following the course, residents significantly improved in user confidence and theoretical knowledge. This easily modifiable and reproducible course can be utilized as an introductory tool for urology residents to begin developing competency in ultrasound, and may act as a stepping stone for further competency-based training programs. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e690-e690 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Michael Uy* More articles by this author Catherine Anne Lovatt More articles by this author Jennifer Hoogenes More articles by this author Carol Bernacci More articles by this author Edward D. Matsumoto More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».