MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095412156 · doi:10.7759/cureus.11209

Point-of-Care Ultrasound Training: An Assessment of Interns’ Needs and Barriers to Training

2020· article· en· W3095412156 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Waleed Khalid Jarwan, Abdullah Alshamrani, Afnan Abdullah Alghamdi, Naveed Mahmood, Yousuf M. S. Kharal, Rajkumar Rajendram, Arif Hussain

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLikert scaleInternshipPoint of care ultrasoundFocused assessment with sonography for traumaMedical educationFamily medicinePhysical therapyUltrasoundSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective The use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is generally on the rise worldwide. However, as the epidemiology of diseases and the approach to their management vary internationally, POCUS may not be universally applicable. The resources available for medical education are generally limited. Thus, when considering the development of a training program during the internship year, we sought to determine interns' perceptions of the applicability of POCUS to clinical practice, the current skill gaps, and barriers to training. Methods A validated questionnaire was distributed to the interns of the College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), Riyadh to determine their proficiency in POCUS, and their opinions on its applicability on a 5-point Likert scale. Each skill gap was calculated by subtracting self-reported proficiency in POCUS from its perceived applicability. Results Of the 300 total interns (male: 200, female: 100), 229 participated [response rate: 76%; male: 136 (68%), female: 93 (93%)]. The use of POCUS to detect abdominal free fluid was perceived to be the most applicable use (mean: 3.9 ±1.1); scanning for consolidation was the least applicable (mean: 3.0 ±1.2). Knowledge and proficiency among the sample were generally poor. The skill gap was greatest for the assessment of inferior vena cava collapsibility (mean: 1.4 ±1.3) and least for the identification of pneumothorax (mean: 0.5 ±1.5). Although three-quarters of the participants (170) agreed that POCUS was an essential skill, 36 (16%) stated that they had no interest in it, and nearly half (101) believed that they did not have time to learn POCUS. Conclusions While POCUS is applicable to medical interns in Saudi Arabia, significant skill gaps exist. However, our sample's perception of the applicability of POCUS was less favorable than that of internal medicine (IM) residents in Canada. Thus, initiating POCUS training during the internship year may yield suboptimal results. Interns must prioritize medical licensing examinations and applications for residency training. Indeed, many interns believe that they do not have enough time to learn POCUS. Thus, prioritizing the training of residents in POCUS may be a more effective use of the finite resources available for medical education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207