The Current State of Ultrasound Training in Canadian Emergency Medicine Programs: Perspectives From Program Directors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is a paucity of data about emergency ultrasound (EUS) training in emergency medicine (EM) residency programs accredited by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (Royal College) and the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC). Historically the progress of EUS in Canada has been different from that in the United States. We describe the current state of EUS training in both Royal College and CFPC-EM programs. METHODS: All Royal College EM program directors and all CFPC-EM program directors were invited to participate in a website-based survey. Main outcome measures were characteristics of currently offered EUS training. RESULTS: The response rate of the survey was 100% (30/30). EUS is part of the formal residency curriculum in 100% (13/13) of Royal College EM programs and in 88% (15/17) of CFPC-EM programs. EM resident rotations in ultrasound (US) are provided by 77% (10/13) of Royal College programs but only 47% (8/17) of CFPC-EM programs. There are specific requirements for numbers of EUS exams to be completed by graduation in 77% (10/13) of Royal College programs and 47% (8/17) of CFPC-EM programs. EM faculty and residents make clinical decisions and patient dispositions based on their EUS interpretation without a consultative study by radiology in 100% (13/13) of Royal College programs and 88% (15/17) of CFPC-EM programs. However, 69% (9/13) of Royal College programs and 53% (9/17) of CFPC-EM programs have no formal quality assurance program in place. CONCLUSIONS: EUS training in Canadian EM programs is prevalent, but there are considerable discrepancies among residency programs in scope of training, curricula, determination of proficiency, and quality assurance. These findings suggest variability in both the level and the quality of EUS training in Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".