Canadian national survey of family medicine residents on point-of-care ultrasound training.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training in family medicine residency programs and to obtain the opinions of current family medicine residents on the role of ultrasound in primary care. DESIGN: A 23-question online survey conducted using SurveyMonkey between March 15 and June 30, 2017. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: All family medicine residents of the 17 Canadian family medicine residency programs were included in the study but all enhanced skills residents were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The quality and relevance of POCUS to primary care as perceived by residents and reported in the survey. RESULTS: A total of 854 Canadian family medicine residents responded, for a national response rate of 32.3%. Most respondents (94.3%) believe that POCUS training should be included in family medicine residency programs; however, only 18.4% of respondents currently receive formal training within their residency. Among those without POCUS training, 91.7% are interested in receiving formal training and 29.7% resorted to taking external POCUS courses. Most (77.5%) would consider using ultrasound in their future practice if they were competent in POCUS. The most useful applications for family medicine were considered to be the FAST (Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma) examination for free fluid and ascites (95.1%), procedural guidance (92.4%), and identifying an intrauterine pregnancy (88.6%). CONCLUSION: This is the largest survey identifying the perceived needs of family medicine residents for POCUS. Very few Canadian family medicine residents currently receive POCUS training. Consistent with our recent family medicine program director survey, there is overwhelming interest by family medicine residents to begin incorporating POCUS training into the family medicine curriculum.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".