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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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