Methodologic Quality of Guidelines for Training or Competence Processes for Basic Point-of-Care Echocardiography in Critical Care: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: The formulation of expert opinion guidelines has several sources of bias that may adversely affect their quality. To minimize bias, guideline creators must use rigorous methodology. There has been no appraisal of the methodologic quality of basic critical care echocardiography (BCCE) training/education guidelines. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the methodologic quality of expert guidelines/recommendations on BCCE training? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The review was performed by a multidisciplinary team including intensive care specialists, a hospital scientist, a trainee, a nurse sonographer, and a public health expert. Four databases (PubMed, OVID-Embase, Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were searched on July 31, 2020, to identify guidelines on BCCE training/education. Every guideline was assessed subjectively for the degree of detail of the recommendations and assessed objectively by using the AGREE-II critical appraisal tool for clinical practice guidelines to generate a scaled domain score. A score ≥ 75% in every domain was the cut off for guidelines to be used without modifications. RESULTS: From 4,288 abstracts screened, 24 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. Very few guidelines made clear recommendations regarding introductory courses: physics (n = 6 [25%]), instrumentation (n = 5 [20.8%]), image acquisition theory (n = 6 [25%]), course curriculum (n = 5 [[20.8%]), pre-course/post-course tests (n = 1 [4.2%]), minimum course duration (n = 6 [25%]), or trainer qualifications (n = 5 [20.8%]). Very few provided clear recommendations for longitudinal competence programs: clinically indicated scans (n = 8 [33.3%]), logbook (n = 14 [58.3%]), image storage (n = 9 [37.5%]), formative assessment (n = 6 [25%]), minimum scan numbers (n = 14 [58.3%]), image acquisition competence (n = 3 [12.5%]), image interpretation competence (n = 2 [8.3%]), and credentialing/certification (n = 3 [12.5%]). Five guidelines (20.8%) attained a scaled overall AGREE-II score ≥ 75%. One guideline (4.2%) attained scores ≥ 75% in every domain. INTERPRETATION: The methodologic appraisal of BCCE-training guidelines showed widespread deficiencies in guideline formulation processes. The impact of these deficiencies on the validity of the recommendations requires further evaluation in longitudinal studies.

Longitudinal Competence Programs for Basic Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Critical Care: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Competence in point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) is widely recommended by several critical care societies. Despite numerous introductory short courses, very few doctors attain PoCUS competence because of the challenges in establishing longitudinal competence programs. RESEARCH QUESTION: To evaluate the methodologic quality of the literature on basic PoCUS competence processes in critical care. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review to identify manuscripts meeting predefined inclusion criteria was performed using three medical databases (PubMed, OVID Embase, and Web of Science); using extra references from original articles, review articles, and expert panel guidelines; and by directly contacting authors for further information if required. The objectives, domains, and inclusion and exclusion criteria of the review were determined during discussions between experienced PoCUS educators. Data extraction and analyses were performed independently by three reviewers. RESULTS: Of the 5,408 abstracts extracted, 42 met the inclusion criteria for longitudinal PoCUS competence. Each study was described along four broad categories: general information, study design, and trainee characteristics; description of introductory course; description of longitudinal competence program; and grading of overall methodologic quality on a 4-point Likert scale. Thirty-nine studies (92.9%) were from a single center. Most studies lacked important details on study methodology such as prior ultrasound experience, pre- and postcourse tests, models for hands-on sessions, ratio of instructors to trainees, competence assessment criteria, number of scans performed by individual trainees, and formative and summative assessments. The studies were rated as follows: poor = 19 (45.2%), average = 15 (35.7%), good = 4 (9.5%), and excellent = 4 (9.5%). INTERPRETATION: Ther is very little high-quality evidence on PoCUS competence. To help frame policy guidelines to improve PoCUS education, there is a need for well-designed longitudinal studies on PoCUS competence. TRIAL REGISTRY: PROSPERO database; No.: CRD42018094033; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.

Impact of Critical Care Point-of-Care Ultrasound Short-Courses on Trainee Competence.

OBJECTIVES: Competence in point-of-care ultrasound is recommended/mandated by several critical care specialties. Although doctors commonly attend point-of-care ultrasound short-courses for introductory training, there is little follow-up data on whether they eventually attain competence. This study was done to determine the impact of point-of-care ultrasound short-courses on point-of-care ultrasound competence. DESIGN: Web-based survey. SETTING: Follow-up after point-of-care ultrasound short-courses in the Asia-Pacific region. SUBJECTS: Doctors who attended a point-of-care ultrasound short-course between December 2015 and February 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Each subject was emailed a questionnaire on or after 6 months following their short-course. They were asked if they had performed at least 30 structured point-of-care ultrasound scans and/or reached point-of-care ultrasound competence and their perceived reasons/challenges/barriers. They were also asked if they used point-of-care ultrasound as a clinical diagnostic aid. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The response rate was 74.9% (182/243). Among the 182 respondents, only 12 (6.6%) had attained competence in their chosen point-of-care ultrasound modality, attributing their success to self-motivation and time management. For the remaining doctors who did not attain competence (170/182, 93.4%), the common reasons were lack of time, change of priorities, and less commonly, difficulties in accessing an ultrasound machine/supervisor. Common suggestions to improve short-courses included requests for scanning practice on acutely ill ICU patients and prior information on the challenges regarding point-of-care ultrasound competence. Suggestions to improve competence pathways included regular supervision and protected learning time. All 12 credentialled doctors regularly used point-of-care ultrasound as a clinical diagnostic aid. Of the 170 noncredentialled doctors, 123 (72.4%) reported performing unsupervised point-of-care ultrasound for clinical management, either sporadically (42/170, 24.7%) or regularly (81/170, 47.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In this survey of doctors attending point-of-care ultrasound short-courses in Australasia, the majority of doctors did not attain competence. However, the practice of unsupervised point-of-care ultrasound use by noncredentialled doctors was common. Further research into effective strategies to improve point-of-care ultrasound competence is required.