Teaching Medical Students Rapid Ultrasound for shock and hypotension (RUSH): learning outcomes and clinical performance in a proof-of-concept study.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a critical diagnostic tool in various medical settings, yet its instruction in medical education is inconsistent. The Rapid Ultrasound for Shock and Hypotension (RUSH) protocol is a comprehensive diagnostic tool, but its complexity poses challenges for teaching and learning. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a single-day training in RUSH for medical students by assessing their performance in clinical scenarios. METHODS: In this prospective single-center observational proof-of-concept study, 16 medical students from Saarland University Medical Center underwent a single-day training in RUSH, followed by evaluations in clinical settings and on a high-fidelity simulator. Performance was assessed using a standardized scoring tool and time to complete the RUSH exam. Knowledge gain was measured with pre- and post-training written exams, and diagnostic performance was evaluated with an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). RESULTS: Students demonstrated high performance in RUSH exam views across patients (median performance: 85-87%) and improved scanning times, although not statistically significant. They performed better on simulators than on live patients. Written exam scores significantly improved post-training, suggesting a gain in theoretical knowledge. However, more than a third of students could not complete the RUSH exam within five minutes on live patients. CONCLUSIONS: Single-day RUSH training improved medical students' theoretical knowledge and simulator performance but translating these skills to clinical settings proved challenging. The findings suggest that while short-term training can be beneficial, it may not suffice for clinical proficiency. This study underscores the need for structured and possibly longitudinal training programs to ensure skill retention and clinical applicability.

Diagnostic prediction models to identify patients at risk for healthcare-facility-onset Clostridioides difficile: A systematic review of methodology and reporting.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the methodology, performance, and generalizability of diagnostic models for predicting the risk of healthcare-facility-onset (HO) Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in adult hospital inpatients (aged ≥18 years). BACKGROUND: CDI is the most common cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea. Prediction models that identify inpatients at risk of HO-CDI have been published; however, the quality and utility of these models remain uncertain. METHODS: Two independent reviewers evaluated articles describing the development and/or validation of multivariable HO-CDI diagnostic models in an inpatient setting. All publication dates, languages, and study designs were considered. Model details (eg, sample size and source, outcome, and performance) were extracted from the selected studies based on the CHARMS checklist. The risk of bias was further assessed using PROBAST. RESULTS: Of the 3,030 records evaluated, 11 were eligible for final analysis, which described 12 diagnostic models. Most studies clearly identified the predictors and outcomes but did not report how missing data were handled. The most frequent predictors across all models were advanced age, receipt of high-risk antibiotics, history of hospitalization, and history of CDI. All studies reported the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) as a measure of discriminatory ability. However, only 3 studies reported the model calibration results, and only 2 studies were externally validated. All of the studies had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The studies varied in their ability to predict the risk of HO-CDI. Future models will benefit from the validation on a prospective external cohort to maximize external validity.

Thrombotic outcomes in patients in a large clinical enterprise following COVID-19 vaccination.

Vaccination against COVID-19 reduces infection-related mortality. Unfortunately, reports of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) in individuals administered adenovirus-vector-based vaccines (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV2.S) have spurred side effect concerns. To address vaccine hesitancy related to this, it is essential to determine the incidence of VITT (defined by a 50% decrease in platelet count and positive anti-PF4 immunoassay within 4-28 days after vaccination) among patients administered two doses of an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination. We identified a retrospective cohort of 223,345 patients in the Cleveland Clinic Enterprise administered a COVID-19 vaccine at any location in Northeast Ohio and Florida from 12/4/2020 to 6/6/2021. 97.3% of these patients received an mRNA-based vaccination. Patients with: (1) a serial complete blood count both before and after vaccination and (2) a decrease in platelet count of ≥ 50% were selected for chart review. The primary outcome was the incidence of thrombotic events, including venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thrombosis, 4-28 days post vaccination. Of 74 cohort patients with acute thrombosis, 72 (97.3%) demonstrated clear etiologies, such as active malignancy. Of two patients with unprovoked thrombosis, only one had findings concerning for VITT, with a strongly positive anti-PF4 antibody assay. In this large, multi-state, retrospective cohort, of 223,345 patients (97.2% of whom received the mRNA-based mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccines), we detected a single case that was concerning for VITT in a patient who received an mRNA vaccine. The overwhelming majority of patients with a thrombotic event 4-28 days following vaccination demonstrated clear etiologies.