Research: Emergency medicine residents’ acquisition of point-of-care ultrasound knowledge and their satisfaction with the flipped classroom andragogy

POCUS Journal ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-5
Author(s):  
Khalid Bashir, MD ◽  
Aftab Azad, MD ◽  
Kaleelullah Saleem Farook, MD ◽  
Shahzad Anjum, MD ◽  
Sameer Pathan, MD ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medicine ◽  
Flipped Classroom ◽  
Teaching Method ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Teaching Model ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Teaching Models ◽  
The Difference

Background: One of the traditional approaches for knowledge transfer in medical education is through face-to-face (F2F) teaching. We aimed to evaluate the acquisition of knowledge about point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and learner’s satisfaction with the flipped classroom (FC) teaching approach. Methods: This was a prospective, mixed-method, crossover study and included 29 emergency medicine (EM) residents in current training program. Over a period of three months, each resident was exposed to F2F and FC teaching models in a crossover manner. There was a multiple-choice questions (MCQ) test before and after each educational intervention (F2F & FC). Two months after each educational intervention a final MCQ test was administered to assess the retention of knowledge between the two approaches. After each educational approach feedback was sought from a selected group of residents concerning the acceptability of the two educational approaches through a semi structured interview. Results: A total of 29 EM residents participated in this study. The numbers of residents by year of post-graduation training were seven (24.14%) PGY-1, eight (27.59%) PGY-2, six (20.69%) PGY-3, and eight (27.59%) PGY-4. The baseline mean score was 15.82 using MCQs test mean scores. For the face-to-face teaching model, the difference between pre and post-intervention scores was 2.7 (95% CI 2.1 to 3.3, p=0.001); whereas, for the flipped classroom teaching model, the difference was 3.93 (95% CI 3.2 to 4.5, p= 0.001). At two months post-intervention, for face-to-face teaching model, the MCQ assessment showed an increase of 1.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.2, p= 0.001) mean scores when compared to the pre-intervention mean scores; whereas, for the flipped classroom model this difference was significantly higher, recorded as 4.48 (95% CI 3.7 to 5.1, p= 0.001). Finally, the difference between mean scores for F2F and FC teaching models was 2.75 (95% CI 1.87 to 3.64, p=0.001) at two months post-intervention.  Overall, the participants expressed a preference for the FC teaching methodology. Conclusion: Both F2F and FC teaching methods resulted in significant and sustained improvements in POCUS knowledge base. The FC teaching method accomplished higher test scores than the F2F teaching method both at the end of the teaching and after two months of completing the educational program.

scholarly journals Face-to-face Teaching in the Flipped Classroom Supported by Visualization Tools – Taking the course of “Architectural Design of Housing” as an Example

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (03) ◽  
pp. 220
Author(s):  
Lili Liu
Keyword(s):  
Flipped Classroom ◽  
Architectural Design ◽  
Teaching Method ◽  
Teaching Quality ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Classroom Teaching ◽  
Teaching Model ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Cognitive Hierarchy ◽  
Visualization Tools

Multimedia-based information technology, especially the flipped classroom using micro video technology, has gradually changed the traditional classroom teaching and become a new teaching method to improve teaching quality. The “five-ones” teaching model combines the theory of flipped learning, micro-video theory and learning target cognitive hierarchy. Visualization tools can create real-time, evidence-based, full-participating classrooms, generating a positive effect on classroom teaching reform. Therefore, with the focus on the course of Architectural Design of Housing, a number of students of X-university majoring in civil construction were involved in an experiment of face-to-face teaching in the flipped classroom supported by visualization tools under the “five-ones” teaching model. The results show that face-to-face teaching in the flipped classroom supported by visualization tools under the “five-ones” teaching model has a significant effect on improving the quality of course teaching, but it also puts higher requirements on the teaching environment, teachers’ ability and students’ self-control.

scholarly journals 145 Point of care lung ultrasound in patient triage: integration of ultrasound into a streaming pathway for COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (12) ◽  
pp. 839.1-839
Author(s):  
Dominic Craver ◽  
Aminah Ahmad ◽  
Anna Colclough
Keyword(s):  
Point Of Care ◽  
District General Hospital ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
Service Evaluation ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Junior Doctors ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Point Of Care Diagnostics ◽  
Audit Data

Aims/Objectives/BackgroundRapid risk stratification of patients is vital for Emergency Department (ED) streaming during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ideally, patients should be split into red (suspected/confirmed COVID-19) and green (non COVID-19) zones in order to minimise the risk of patient-to-patient and patient-to-staff transmission. A robust yet rapid streaming system combining clinician impression with point-of-care diagnostics is therefore necessary.Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) findings in COVID-19 have been shown to correlate well with computed tomography (CT) findings, and it therefore has value as a front-door diagnostic tool. At University Hospital Lewisham (a district general hospital in south London), we recognised the value of early POCUS and its potential for use in patient streaming.Methods/DesignWe developed a training programme, ‘POCUS for COVID’ and subsequently integrated POCUS into streaming of our ED patients. The training involved Zoom lectures, a face to face practical, a 10 scan sign off process followed by a final triggered assessment. Patient outcomes were reviewed in conjunction with their scan reports.Results/ConclusionsCurrently, we have 21 ED junior doctors performing ultrasound scans independently, and all patients presenting to our department are scanned either in triage or in the ambulance. A combination of clinical judgement and scan findings are used to stream the patient to an appropriate area.Service evaluation with analysis of audit data has found our streaming to be 94% sensitive and 79% specific as an indicator of COVID 19. Further analysis is ongoing.Here we present both the structure of our training programme and our integrated streaming pathway along with preliminary analysis results.

scholarly journals Use of a Refresher Course Increases Confidence in Point-of-Care Ultrasound Skills in Emergency Medicine Faculty

Cureus ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madeline Schwid ◽  
Owen Harris ◽  
Adaira Landry ◽  
Andrew Eyre ◽  
Patricia Henwood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medicine ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound

Perception of point-of-care ultrasound performed by emergency medicine physicians

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (7) ◽  
pp. 408-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Whitney Hansen ◽  
Carl E. Mitchell ◽  
Bikash Bhattarai ◽  
Napatkamon Ayutyanont ◽  
Jeffrey R. Stowell
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medicine ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound

Barriers to reporting guideline adherence in point-of-care ultrasound research: a cross-sectional survey of authors and journal editors

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2020-111604
Author(s):  
Ross Prager ◽  
Luke Gagnon ◽  
Joshua Bowdridge ◽  
Rudy R Unni ◽  
Trevor A McGrath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medicine ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
Journal Editors

ObjectiveAlthough the literature supporting the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) continues to grow, incomplete reporting of primary diagnostic accuracy studies has previously been identified as a barrier to translating research into practice and to performing unbiased systematic reviews. This study assesses POCUS investigator and journal editor attitudes towards barriers to adhering to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 guidelines.Design, setting, participantsTwo separate surveys using a 5-point Likert scale were sent to POCUS study investigators and journal editors to assess for knowledge, attitude and behavioural barriers to the complete reporting of POCUS research. Respondents were identified based on a previous study assessing STARD 2015 adherence for POCUS studies published in emergency medicine, anaesthesia and critical care journals. Responses were anonymously linked to STARD 2015 adherence data from the previous study. Written responses were thematically grouped into the following categories: knowledge, attitude and behavioural barriers to quality reporting, or other. Likert response items are reported as median with IQRs.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the median Likert score for the investigator and editor surveys assessing knowledge, attitude and behavioural beliefs about barriers to adhering to the STARD 2015 guidelines.ResultsThe investigator survey response rate was 18/69 (26%) and the editor response rate was 5/21 (24%). Most investigator respondents were emergency medicine practitioners (13/21, 62%). Two-thirds of investigators were aware of the STARD 2015 guidelines (12/18, 67%) and overall agreed that incomplete reporting limits generalisability and the ability to detect risk of bias (median 4 (4, 5)). Investigators felt that the STARD 2015 guidelines were useful, easy to find and easy to use (median 4 (4, 4.25); median 4 (4, 4.25) and median 4 (3, 4), respectively). There was a shared opinion held by investigators and editors that the peer review process be primarily responsible for ensuring complete research reporting (median 4 (3, 4) and median 4 (3.75, 4), respectively). Three of 18 authors (17%) felt that the English publication language of STARD 2015 was a barrier to adherence.ConclusionsAlthough investigators and editors recognise the importance of completely reported research, reporting quality is still a core issue for POCUS research. The shared opinion held by investigators and editors that the peer review process be primarily responsible for reporting quality is potentially problematic; we view completely reported research as an integral part of the research process that investigators are responsible for, with the peer review process serving as another additional layer of quality control. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals, auditing reporting guideline adherence during the peer review process and translation of STARD 2015 guidelines into additional languages may improve reporting completeness for the acute POCUS literature.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework Registry (https://osf.io/5pzxs/).

The abdomen

2019 ◽  
pp. 89-106
Author(s):  
Justin Bowra ◽  
Osama Loubani ◽  
Paul Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medicine ◽  
Bowel Obstruction ◽  
Peritoneal Fluid ◽  
Renal Colic ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Clinical Situation ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Quadrant Pain ◽  
Diagnosis And Management ◽  
Rule Out

Abdominal point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) for intra-peritoneal fluid in trauma is one of the earliest, and now most accepted, uses of PoCUS in emergency medicine and resuscitation. It is an essential part of the e-FAST (Extended Focused Assessment in Trauma) examination. Abdominal PoCUS can also guide diagnosis and management of right upper quadrant pain and renal colic. PoCUS can also ‘rule in’ (but not ‘rule out’) bowel obstruction and appendicitis. Regardless of the clinical situation, PoCUS is used to answer specific binary questions, rather than to perform an exhaustive survey of the abdomen.

scholarly journals 238 Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Morbidity and Mortality Cases in Emergency Medicine

2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. S92
Author(s):  
A. Goldsmith ◽  
H. Shokoohi ◽  
M. Loesche ◽  
N. Duggan ◽  
R. Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medicine ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Morbidity And Mortality ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document