MP47-15 POINT OF CARE ULTRASOUND IN UROLOGY: BUILDING A FEASIBLE INTRODUCTORY TRAINING PROGRAM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 ...
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".