Hein Lamprecht

International Federation for Emergency Medicine point of care ultrasound curriculum.

To meet a critical and growing need for a standardized approach to emergency point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) worldwide, emergency physicians must be trained to deliver and teach this skill in an accepted and reliable format. Currently, there is no globally recognized, standard PoCUS curriculum that defines the accepted applications, as well as standards for training and practice of PoCUS by specialists and trainees in emergency medicine. To address this deficit, the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM) convened a sub-committee of international experts in PoCUS to outline a curriculum for training of specialists in emergency PoCUS. This curriculum document represents the consensus of recommendations by this sub-committee. The curriculum is designed to provide a framework for PoCUS education in emergency medicine. The focus is on the processes required to select core and enhanced applications, as well as the key elements required for the delivery of PoCUS training from introduction through to continuing professional development and skill maintenance. It is designed not to be prescriptive but to assist educators and emergency medicine leadership to advance PoCUS education in emergency medicine no matter the training venue. The content of this curriculum is relevant not just for communities with mature emergency medicine systems but in particular for developing nations or for nations seeking to develop PoCUS training programs within the current educational structure. We anticipate that there will be wide variability in how this curriculum is implemented and taught, reflecting the existing educational environment, resources and goals of educational programs.

Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest (SHoC): Rates of Abnormal Findings in Undifferentiated Hypotension and During Cardiac Arrest as a Basis for Consensus on a Hierarchical Point of Care Ultrasound Protocol

Introduction Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) has become an established tool in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension. Current established protocols (RUSH and ACES) were developed by expert user opinion, rather than objective, prospective data. PoCUS also provides invaluable information during resuscitation efforts in cardiac arrest by determining presence/absence of cardiac activity and identifying reversible causes such as pericardial tamponade. There is no agreed guideline on how to safely and effectively incorporate PoCUS into the advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) algorithm. We wished to report disease incidence as a basis to develop a hierarchical approach to PoCUS in hypotension and during cardiac arrest. Methods We summarized the recorded incidence of PoCUS findings from the initial cohort during the interim analysis of two prospective studies. We propose that this will form the basis for developing a modified Delphi approach incorporating this data to obtain the input of a panel of international experts associated with five professional organizations led by the International Federation of Emergency Medicine (IFEM). The modified Delphi tool will be developed to reach an international consensus on how to integrate PoCUS for hypotensive emergency department patients as well as into cardiac arrest algorithms. Results Rates of abnormal PoCUS findings from 151 patients with undifferentiated hypotension included left ventricular dynamic changes (43%), IVC abnormalities (27%), pericardial effusion (16%), and pleural fluid (8%). Abdominal pathology was rare (fluid 5%, AAA 2%). During cardiac arrest there were no pericardial effusions, however abnormalities of ventricular contraction (45%) and valvular motion (39%) were common among the 43 patients included. Conclusions A prospectively collected disease incidence-based hierarchy of scanning can be developed based on the reported findings. This will inform an international consensus process towards the development of proposed SHoC protocols for hypotension and cardiac arrest, comprised of the stepwise clinical-indication based approach of Core, Supplementary, and Additional PoCUS views. We hope that such a protocol would be structured in a way that enables the clinician to only perform views that are clinically indicated, which limits exposure to the frequent incidental positive findings that accompany the current “one size fits all” standard protocols.

Does Point-of-Care Ultrasonography Improve Clinical Outcomes in Emergency Department Patients With Undifferentiated Hypotension? An International Randomized Controlled Trial From the SHoC-ED Investigators

Study objective Point‐of‐care ultrasonography protocols are commonly used in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED). There is little published evidence for any mortality benefit. We compare the effect of a point‐of‐care ultrasonography protocol versus standard care without point‐of‐care ultrasonography for survival and clinical outcomes. Methods This international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial recruited from 6 centers in North America and South Africa and included selected hypotensive patients (systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg or shock index >1) randomized to early point‐of‐care ultrasonography plus standard care versus standard care without point‐of‐care ultrasonography. Diagnoses were recorded at 0 and 60 minutes. The primary outcome measure was survival to 30 days or hospital discharge. Secondary outcome measures included initial treatment and investigations, admissions, and length of stay. Results Follow‐up was completed for 270 of 273 patients. The most common diagnosis in more than half the patients was occult sepsis. We found no important differences between groups for the primary outcome of survival (point‐of‐care ultrasonography group 104 of 136 patients versus standard care 102 of 134 patients; difference 0.35%; 95% binomial confidence interval [CI] –10.2% to 11.0%), survival in North America (point‐of‐care ultrasonography group 76 of 89 patients versus standard care 72 of 88 patients; difference 3.6%; CI –8.1% to 15.3%), and survival in South Africa (point‐of‐care ultrasonography group 28 of 47 patients versus standard care 30 of 46 patients; difference 5.6%; CI –15.2% to 26.0%). There were no important differences in rates of computed tomography (CT) scanning, inotrope or intravenous fluid use, and ICU or total length of stay. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial to compare point‐of‐care ultrasonography to standard care without point‐of‐care ultrasonography in undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We did not find any benefits for survival, length of stay, rates of CT scanning, inotrope use, or fluid administration. The addition of a point‐of‐care ultrasonography protocol to standard care may not translate into a survival benefit in this group.

Getting It Right the First Time: Defining Regionally Relevant Training Curricula and Provider Core Competencies for Point-of-Care Ultrasound Education on the African Continent

&NA; Significant evidence identifies point‐of‐care ultrasound (PoCUS) as an important diagnostic and therapeutic tool in resource‐limited settings. Despite this evidence, local health care providers on the African continent continue to have limited access to and use of ultrasound, even in potentially high‐impact fields such as obstetrics and trauma. Dedicated postgraduate emergency medicine residency training programs now exist in 8 countries, yet no current consensus exists in regard to core PoCUS competencies. The current practice of transferring resource‐rich PoCUS curricula and delivery methods to resource‐limited health systems fails to acknowledge the unique challenges, needs, and disease burdens of recipient systems. As emergency medicine leaders from 8 African countries, we introduce a practical algorithmic approach, based on the local epidemiology and resource constraints, to curriculum development and implementation. We describe an organizational structure composed of nexus learning centers for PoCUS learners and champions on the continent to keep credentialing rigorous and standardized. Finally, we put forth 5 key strategic considerations: to link training programs to hospital systems, to prioritize longitudinal learning models, to share resources to promote health equity, to maximize access, and to develop a regional consensus on training standards and credentialing.

Poor return on investment: investigating the barriers that cause low credentialing yields in a resource-limited clinical ultrasound training programme

BackgroundClinical ultrasound is commonly used in medical practices worldwide due to the multiple benefits the modality offers clinicians. Rigorous credentialing standards are necessary to safeguard patients against operator errors. The purpose of the study was to establish and analyse the barriers that specifically lead to poor credentialing success within a resource-limited clinical ultrasound training programme.MethodsAn electronic cross-sectional survey was e-mailed to all trainees who attended the introductory clinical ultrasound courses held in Cape Town since its inception in 2009 to 2013. All trainees were followed until they completed their training programme in 2015.ResultsOnly one fifth of trainees (n = 43, 19.7%), who entered the Cape Town training programme, credentialed successfully. Ninety (n = 90, 41.3%) trainees responded to the survey. Eighty-six (n = 86) surveys were included for analysis. Time constraints were the highest ranked barrier amongst all trainees. Access barriers (to trainers and ultrasound machines) were the second highest ranked amongst the non-credentialed group. A combination between access and logistical barriers (e.g. difficulty in finding patients with pathology to scan) were the second highest ranked in the credentialed group.ConclusionsAccess barriers conspire to burden the Cape Town clinical ultrasound training programme. Novel solutions are necessary to overcome these access barriers to improve future credentialing success.

A comparison of work stressors in higher and lower resourced emergency medicine health settings

OBJECTIVES The study compares experiences of workplace stressors for emergency medicine trainees and specialists in settings where the specialty is relatively well resourced and established (Canada), and where it is newer and less well resourced (South Africa, (SA)). METHODS We conducted an online cross-sectional survey of emergency medicine trainees and physicians in both countries for six domains (demands, role, support, change, control, and relationships) using the validated Management Standards Indicator Tool (MSIT, Health, and Safety Executive, United Kingdom). RESULTS 74 SA and 430 Canadian respondents were included in our analysis. SA trainees (n=38) reported higher stressors (lower MSIT scores) than SA specialists (n=36) for demands (2.2 (95%CI 2.1-2.3) vs. 2.7 (2.5-2.8)), control (2.6 (2.4-2.7) vs. 3.5 (3.3-3.7)) and change (2.4 (2.2-2.6) vs. 3.0 (2.7-3.3)). In Canada, specialists (n=395) had higher demands (2.6 (2.6-2.7) vs. 3.0 (2.8-3.1)) and manager support stressors (3.3 (3.3-3.4) vs. 3.9 (3.6-4.1)) than trainees (n=35). Canadian trainees reported higher role stressors (4.0 (95%CI 3.8-4.1) vs. 4.2 (4.2-4.3)) than Canadian specialists. SA trainees had higher stressors on all domains than Canadian trainees. There was one domain (control) where Canadian specialists scored significantly lower than SA specialists, whereas SA specialists had significantly lower scores on peer support, relationships and role. CONCLUSIONS Work related stressor domains were different for all four groups. Perceived stressors were higher in all measured domains among SA trainees compared with Canadian trainees. The differences between the SA and Canadian specialists may reflect the developing nature of the specialty in SA, although the Canadian specialists reported less control over their work than SA counterparts.