Diagnostic Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Recommendations From an Expert Panel.

Diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) has emerged as a powerful tool to help anesthesiologists guide patient care in both the perioperative setting and the subspecialty arenas. Although anesthesiologists can turn to guideline statements pertaining to other aspects of ultrasound use, to date there remains little in the way of published guidance regarding diagnostic PoCUS. To this end, in 2018, the American Society of Anesthesiologists chartered an ad hoc committee consisting of 23 American Society of Anesthesiologists members to provide recommendations on this topic. The ad hoc committee convened and developed a committee work product. This work product was updated in 2021 by an expert panel of the ad hoc committee to produce the document presented herein. The document, which represents the consensus opinion of a group of practicing anesthesiologists with established expertise in diagnostic ultrasound, addresses the following issues: (1) affirms the practice of diagnostic PoCUS by adequately trained anesthesiologists, (2) identifies the scope of practice of diagnostic PoCUS relevant to anesthesiologists, (3) suggests the minimum level of training needed to achieve competence, (4) provides recommendations for how diagnostic PoCUS can be used safely and ethically, and (5) provides broad guidance about diagnostic ultrasound billing.

Evaluation of a survey for acute care programme directors on the utilisation of point-of-care ultrasound.

PURPOSE: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is ultrasound brought to the patient's bedside and performed in 'real time' by the healthcare provider. The utility of POCUS to facilitate management of the acutely ill patient has been demonstrated for multiple pathologies. However, the integration of ultrasonography and echocardiography training into residency curriculum varies across the acute care specialties. STUDY DESIGN: After an institutional review board approval, anaesthesiology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, paediatrics and general surgery programme directors (PDs) were surveyed. The survey consisted of 11 questions evaluating the primary bedside assessment tool for common acute care situations, POCUS topics that the PDs were comfortable practising and topics that the PDs felt were useful for their specialty. Barriers to POCUS use, certification and documentation were also surveyed. RESULTS: Overall, 270 PD surveys were completed. The preferred primary assessment tool for common acute care situations varied with specialty; emergency medicine PDs consistently responded that POCUS was the diagnostic modality of choice (p<0.0001). The majority of the PDs reported lack of educational opportunities as the primary barrier to learning POCUS (64%). Most PDs indicated that POCUS examinations should be documented (95.7%), and 39% reported that departmental certification would be sufficient. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to evaluate differences in the preferred initial bedside assessment tool between the acute care specialties. Although POCUS is a superior tool for evaluating acute pathologies, disconnect between education and utilisation remains. This study highlights the need to incorporate POCUS into the acute care specialty curriculum.

Assisted Fluid Management Software Guidance for Intraoperative Fluid Administration.

BACKGROUND: Excessive or inadequate fluid administration causes complications, but despite this, fluid administration during noncardiac surgery is highly variable. Goal-directed management helps optimize the amount and timing of fluid administration; however, implementation is difficult because algorithms are complex. The authors therefore tested the performance of the Acumen Assisted Fluid Management software (Edwards Lifesciences, USA), which is designed to guide optimal intravenous fluid administration during surgery. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, single-arm cohort evaluation, the authors enrolled 330 adults scheduled for moderate- to high-risk noncardiac surgery that required arterial catheter insertion and mechanical ventilation. Clinicians chose a fluid strategy based on a desired 10%, 15%, or 20% increase in stroke volume (SV) in response to a fluid bolus. Dedicated fluid management software prompted "test" or "recommended" boluses, and clinicians were free to initiate a "user" bolus of 100 to 500 ml of crystalloid or colloid. Clinicians were free to accept or decline the software prompts. The authors primarily compared the fraction of software-recommended boluses that produced suitable increases in SV to a 30% reference rate. On an exploratory basis, we compared responses to software-recommended and clinician-initiated boluses. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-four of 479 (89%) software-recommended fluid boluses and 508 of 592 (86%) clinician-initiated fluid boluses were analyzed per protocol. Of those, 66% (95% CI, 62 to 70%) of delivered fluid boluses recommended by the software resulted in desired increases in SV, compared with the 30% reference rate, whereas only 41% (95% CI, 38 to 44%) of clinician-initiated boluses did (P < 0.0001). The mean ± SD increase in SV after boluses recommended by the software was 14.2 ± 13.9% versus 8.3 ± 12.1% (P < 0.0001) for those initiated by clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Fluid boluses recommended by the software resulted in desired SV increases more often, and with greater absolute SV increase, than clinician-initiated boluses. Automated assessment of fluid responsiveness may help clinicians optimize intraoperative fluid management during noncardiac surgery.

Comparison of Three Point-of-Care Ultrasound Views and MRI Measurements for Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter: A Prospective Validity Study.

INTRODUCTION: Point-of-care ultrasound of the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) to diagnose increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is of great interest in various clinical scenarios. Yet, the lack of examination standardization has made clinical utility difficult. We compare three ultrasound ocular plane views (inferior, sagittal, and transverse), which are currently used in the literature to evaluate their consistency. Comparisons for each view to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements were also made. METHODS: Fifty-one patients with recent MRI of the brain, but without clinical or radiological signs of elevated ICP, were selected to undergo ocular sonography via three ultrasound planes (inferior, sagittal, and transverse). Optic nerve sheath was measured in each ultrasound view as well with MRI. Image quality scores were assigned for the ultrasound views in different orientations. The three ocular plane views were analyzed for correlation. In addition, correlation of the three ocular ultrasound views with MRI was also performed. RESULTS: Correlation analysis showed a wide variability in the correlation between different ultrasound views with magnitude range of 0.1 to 0.8 and directions being both positive and negative. There was a difference in image quality scores between the ultrasound views. The inferior and transverse orientations were superior to the sagittal orientation in achieving high image quality. Comparison to MRI measurements did not demonstrate a significant correlation. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that absolute measurements should not be compared across different ultrasound orientations given the wide variability in the correlation between the ultrasound views used to assess the optic nerve sheath. The inferior and transverse ultrasound views are the most likely to yield high-quality images, although the specific view, for the best image, in an individual patient can vary. We would caution against absolute values of ONSD to indicate increased ICP, as it may be view dependent.

Feasibility evaluation of non-invasive cardiac function technology during echocardiography-based cardiac stress testing.

Evaluation of cardiac function during periods of stress is of key importance for the perioperative setting. Non-invasive hemodynamic monitors provide markers of cardiac function. This pilot study sought to evaluate the ability of a non-invasive hemodynamic monitor to detect cardiac stress during formal stress echocardiography testing. The primary goal was to compare the change in hemodynamic values during the pre/during/post phases of stress echocardiography testing in patients who had results negative versus positive for myocardial ischemia. Adult patients scheduled for outpatient cardiac stress testing were screened. Only patients scheduled for stress-echocardiography testing were consented. Patients with history of arrhythmias were excluded. During the testing, patients wore a cuff-based hemodynamic sensor (Nexfin system, Edwards Lifesciences). Data from the hemodynamic sensor were compared to the findings of the stress study. A total of 37 patients were enrolled, with 31 patients included for analysis. Five patients had stress studies positive for coronary ischemia. Comparison of the hemodynamic variables between patients who had a positive stress study versus negative showed a significant reduction in the percentage change in dP/dt and stroke volume from baseline (p < 0.05). This pilot study indicates that patients who have abnormal stress echocardiograms also have significantly reduced values from a noninvasive hemodynamic monitor. Further evaluation of the clinical utility of this technology, to assist in the care of patients at risk for cardiac ischemia, should be carried out.

A comparison of midazolam and zolpidem as oral premedication in children, a prospective randomized double-blinded clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety associated with pediatric surgery can be stressful. Midazolam is a well-accepted anxiolytic in this setting. However, there are cases in which this medication is not effective. Zolpidem is a short-acting nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic drug that is administered orally and has quick onset of action (~15 minutes), and 2-3 hour duration. AIMS: Based on the theory that impaired perception following oral zolpidem administration would suppress the development of anxiety, we sought to compare zolpidem to midazolam for pediatric preoperative anxiety. METHODS: This prospective randomized double-blinded clinical trial was designed to compare the effectiveness of oral midazolam and zolpidem for anxiety premedication. Eighty ASA class I-II pediatric patients between 2 and 9 years old, surgery >2 hours, and at least 23 hours postoperative admission were included in the study. Randomization was done with 0.5 mg/kg midazolam or 0.25 mg/kg zolpidem administered orally. The primary outcome measure was between group difference in patient anxiety at the time of separation using the Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale. Secondary outcomes included emergence delirium and mask acceptance at induction. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale scores at separation between midazolam (median/interquartile range = 26.7/23.3-36.6) and zolpidem (median/interquartile range = 30.0/23.3-56.6) groups, difference 0.01 (95% CI -3E-5 , 3E-2 ; P = 0.07). Mask acceptance score was significantly better in the midazolam group. There was no significant difference in emergence delirium scores between groups. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that zolpidem, as dosed, was similar to midazolam with regard to anxiety scoring, and inferior with regard to mask acceptance scores.

Perioperative point of care ultrasound in ambulatory anesthesia: thinking beyond nerve blocks.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ultrasound has become readily available in the perioperative area. In this review, we aim to bring forth some uses of ultrasound beyond that in regional anesthesia. RECENT FINDINGS: Critical care and emergency physicians have embraced ultrasound in their respective fields. We as anesthesiologists and practitioners of acute care medicine are not immune to this penetration. There is been a lot of recent literature on the various uses of perioperative point of care ultrasound. Our review summarizes the recent data and provides the reader with an overall idea of the uses of ultrasound in the perioperative arena. SUMMARY: Focus towards improving patient outcomes is the goal of all physicians and point of care ultrasound is one modality that can help us manage some common conditions in the perioperative period. Perioperative point of care ultrasound training may soon become a prerequisite for an anesthesiology residency.

Auscultation versus Point-of-care Ultrasound to Determine Endotracheal versus Bronchial Intubation: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

BACKGROUND: Unrecognized malposition of the endotracheal tube (ETT) can lead to severe complications in patients under general anesthesia. The focus of this double-blinded randomized study was to assess the accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in verifying the correct position of the ETT and to compare it with the accuracy of auscultation. METHODS: Forty-two adult patients requiring general anesthesia with ETT were consented. Patients were randomized to right main bronchus, left main bronchus, or tracheal intubation. After randomization, the ETT was placed via fiber-optic visualization. Next, the location of the ETT was assessed using auscultation by a separate blinded anesthesiologist, followed by an ultrasound performed by a third blinded anesthesiologist. Ultrasound examination included assessment of tracheal dilation via cuff inflation with air and evaluation of pleural lung sliding. Statistical analysis included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and interobserver agreement for the ultrasound examination (95% CI). RESULTS: In differentiating tracheal versus bronchial intubations, auscultation showed a sensitivity of 66% (0.39 to 0.87) and a specificity of 59% (0.39 to 0.77), whereas ultrasound showed a sensitivity of 93% (0.66 to 0.99) and specificity of 96% (0.79 to 1). Identification of tracheal versus bronchial intubation was 62% (26 of 42) in the auscultation group and 95% (40 of 42) in the ultrasound group (P = 0.0005) (CI for difference, 0.15 to 0.52), and the McNemar comparison showed statistically significant improvement with ultrasound (P < 0.0001). Interobserver agreement of ultrasound findings was 100%. CONCLUSION: Assessment of trachea and pleura via point-of-care ultrasound is superior to auscultation in determining the location of ETT.

Impact assessment of perioperative point-of-care ultrasound training on anesthesiology residents.

BACKGROUND: The perioperative surgical home model highlights the need for trainees to include modalities that are focused on the entire perioperative experience. The focus of this study was to design, introduce, and evaluate the integration of a whole-body point-of-care (POC) ultrasound curriculum (Focused periOperative Risk Evaluation Sonography Involving Gastroabdominal Hemodynamic and Transthoracic ultrasound) into residency training. METHODS: For 2 yr, anesthesiology residents (n = 42) received lectures using a model/simulation design and half were also randomly assigned to receive pathology assessment training. Posttraining performance was assessed through Kirkpatrick levels 1 to 4 outcomes based on the resident satisfaction surveys, multiple-choice tests, pathologic image evaluation, human model testing, and assessment of clinical impact via review of clinical examination data. RESULTS: Evaluation of the curriculum demonstrated high satisfaction scores (n = 30), improved content test scores (n = 37) for all tested categories (48 ± 16 to 69 ± 17%, P < 0.002), and improvement on human model examinations. Residents randomized to receive pathology training (n = 18) also showed higher scores compared with those who did not (n = 19) (9.1 ± 2.5 vs. 17.4 ± 3.1, P < 0.05). Clinical examinations performed in the organization after the study (n = 224) showed that POC ultrasound affected clinical management at a rate of 76% and detected new pathology at a rate of 31%. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that a whole-body POC ultrasound curriculum can be effectively taught to anesthesiology residents and that this training may provide clinical benefit. These results should be evaluated within the context of the perioperative surgical home.

Perioperative goal-directed therapy and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk abdominal surgery: a historical-prospective, comparative effectiveness study.

INTRODUCTION: Perioperative goal-directed therapy (PGDT) may improve postoperative outcome in high-risk surgery patients but its adoption has been slow. In 2012, we initiated a performance improvement (PI) project focusing on the implementation of PGDT during high-risk abdominal surgeries. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention. METHODS: This is a historical prospective quality improvement study. The goal of this initiative was to standardize the way fluid management and hemodynamic optimization are conducted during high-risk abdominal surgery in the Departments of Anesthesiology and Surgery at the University of California Irvine. For fluid management, the protocol consisted in standardized baseline crystalloid administration of 3 ml/kg/hour and any additional boluses based on PGDT. The impact of the intervention was assessed on the length of stay in the hospital (LOS) and post-operative complications (NSQIP database). RESULTS: In the 1 year pre- and post-implementation periods, 128 and 202 patients were included. The average volume of fluid administered during the case was 9.9 (7.1-13.0) ml/kg/hour in the pre-implementation period and 6.6 (4.7-9.5) ml/kg/hour in the post-implementation period (p < 0.01). LOS decreased from 10 (6-16) days to 7 (5-11) days (p = 0.0001). Based on the multiple linear regression analysis, the estimated coefficient for intervention was 0.203 (SE = 0.054, p = 0.0002) indicating that, with the other conditions being held the same, introducing intervention reduced LOS by 18% (95% confidence interval 9-27%). The incidence of NSQIP complications decreased from 39% to 25% (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the implementation of a PI program focusing on the implementation of PGDT can transform fluid administration patterns and improve postoperative outcome in patients undergoing high-risk abdominal surgeries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02057653. Registered 17 December 2013.

Clinical review: Does it matter which hemodynamic monitoring system is used?

Hemodynamic monitoring and management has greatly improved during the past decade. Technologies have evolved from very invasive to non-invasive, and the philosophy has shifted from a static approach to a functional approach. However, despite these major changes, the critical care community still has potential to improve its ability to adopt the most modern standards of research methodology in order to more effectively evaluate new monitoring systems and their impact on patient outcome. Today, despite the huge enthusiasm raised by new hemodynamic monitoring systems, there is still a big gap between clinical research studies evaluating these monitors and clinical practice. A few studies, especially in the perioperative period, have shown that hemodynamic monitoring systems coupled with treatment protocols can improve patient outcome. These trials are small and, overall, the corpus of science related to this topic does not yet fit the standard of clinical research methodology encountered in other specialties such as cardiology and oncology. Larger randomized trials or quality improvement processes will probably answer questions related to the real impact of these systems.

Outcome impact of goal directed fluid therapy during high risk abdominal surgery in low to moderate risk patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Intraoperative goal directed fluid therapy (GDT) guided by an arterial pressure-based cardiac output system has been reported to improve gastrointestinal (GI) recovery in high-risk patients. This study evaluates the impact of this approach on GI recovery in low to moderate risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. IRB approved randomized controlled trial in low to moderate risk adults scheduled for major surgery. Patients were randomized to standard (n = 20) or GDT (n = 18) groups, whose fluids were managed to maintain stroke volume variation (SVV) <12 %. The primary outcome measure was GI recovery. Additional measures included quality of recovery score. Continuous, non-normally distributed by Mann-Whitney test; ordinal and nominal by Chi square analysis. GDT patients had lower average intraoperative SVV. The GDT group had faster return of GI function (p = 0.004) and higher quality of recovery scores. In low to moderate risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, intraoperative GDT guided by SVV optimization was associated with faster restoration of GI recovery and higher quality of recovery scores. These results suggest that outcome benefits related to the use of an intraoperative goal directed fluid protocol guided by SVV are not limited to high-risk patients.

Telemedicine pre-anesthesia evaluation: a randomized pilot trial.

OBJECTIVE: Pre-anesthesia evaluation allows discovery of conditions affecting perioperative planning, but when inadequate it may be associated with delays, cancellations, and preventable adverse events. Not all patients who could benefit will keep appointments. Telemedicine pre-anesthesia evaluation may provide for safe patient care while reducing patient inconvenience and cost. Herein we investigate the impact of telemedicine pre-anesthesia evaluation on perioperative processes. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was a single-center prospective randomized trial in 200 adults scheduled for head and neck surgery at Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA. Consenting patients not meeting criteria for telephone pre-anesthesia evaluation were randomly assigned to the in-person or telemedicine group. The primary outcome measure was inadequate evaluation caused surgical delay or cancellation. Secondary measures included prediction of difficult airway management and concordance of physical examination. RESULTS: After consent, 40 patients met criteria for telephone screening. Five patients canceled surgery, none for inadequate pre-anesthesia evaluation; thus 155 were randomized. Delay occurred in 1 telemedicine patient awaiting results performed outside our system. Missing documentation at the time of the visit was less common for telemedicine. Difficult airway management was predicted equally but had low positive predictive value. Heart and lung examinations were highly concordant with day of surgery documentation. Patients and providers were highly satisfied with both evaluation modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine and in-person evaluations were equivalent, with high patient and provider satisfaction. Telemedicine provides potential patient time and cost saving benefits without more day of surgery delay in our system. A prospective trial of patients from multiple surgical specialty clinics is warranted.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Patients Who Underwent Leadless Pacemaker Implantation.

Evidence regarding racial disparities in leadless pacemaker (LP) utilization and outcomes is limited. We aimed to explore ethnicity-based disparities in LP utilization and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent LP implantation. All consecutive patients who underwent LP between January 2019 and January 2023 at our institution were included. Charts were reviewed for baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes. The primary outcomes were procedure-related complications, cardiac rehospitalization, worsening heart failure (HF) or HF hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics 22 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). The p <0.05 was considered statistically significant. A total of 196 adult patients underwent LP implantation during the study period (48% Caucasians, 36.2% Hispanic, 8.2% Asians, and 7.7% African-American). The groups were balanced with respect to baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and procedure-related complications. During the median follow-up of 104 days (interquartile range 24 to 382), no statistically significant differences were observed in worsening HF or HF hospitalization or all-cause mortality among the ethnic groups. After multivariable logistic regression, Asian individuals had higher odds of cardiac readmissions (odds ratio 4.1, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 12.3, p = 0.01). Patients from racial and ethnic minorities face significant inequities in arrhythmia care, including patients who have undergone LP implantation. Awareness and a system-based approach (understanding cultural preferences, effective application of evidence-based guidelines, and population-based policies) are crucial to lessen disparities in health care among minorities.

Assessment of cardiopulmonary point-of-care ultrasound objective structured clinical examinations in graduating anesthesiology residents across multiple residency programs.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To implement and assess a cardiopulmonary point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in a large cohort of graduating anesthesia residents. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: University-affiliated hospitals. SUBJECTS: 150 graduating anesthesia residents in their last nine months of training. INTERVENTIONS: A standardized cardiopulmonary OSCE was administered to each resident. MEASUREMENTS: The cardiac views evaluated were parasternal long axis (PLAX), apical 4 chamber (A4C), and parasternal short axis (PSAX). The pulmonary views evaluated were pleural effusion (PLE) and pneumothorax (PTX). In addition, a pre- and post-exam survey scored on a 5-point Likert scale was administered to each resident. MAIN RESULTS: A4C view (mean 0.7 ± 0.3) scored a lower mean, compared to PSAX (mean 0.8 ± 0.3) and PLAX (mean 0.8 ± 0.4). Residents performed well on the PTX exam (mean 0.9 ± 0.3) but more poorly on the PLE exam (mean 0.6 ± 0.4). Structural identification across cardiac and pulmonary views were mostly high (means >0.7), but advanced interpretive skills and maneuvers had lower mean scores. Pre- and post- OSCE survey results were positive with almost all questions scoring >4 on the Likert scale. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that a cardiopulmonary POCUS OSCE can be successfully implemented across multiple anesthesia training programs. While most residents were able to perform basic ultrasound views and identify structures, advanced interpretive skills and maneuvers performed lower.

Transthoracic echocardiography simulation is an efficient method to train anesthesiologists in basic transthoracic echocardiography skills.

BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of focused transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is increasingly recognized in perioperative medicine. However its use is limited among anesthesiologists because of a lack of training. The most efficient training methods have not been determined. We hypothesized that simulation-based TTE training would be more effective than traditional lecture-based methods for teaching basic TTE skills to the anesthesiology residents. METHODS: In this prospective randomized study, 61 anesthesiology residents (in anesthesia clinical training years 1 to 3) were randomized to either control (n = 30) or simulation groups (n = 31) for TTE training. A standardized pretest was administered before TTE training sessions of 45 minutes each. The first training session used a lecture-based video didactic in the control group or a TTE simulator in the simulation group. Comprehension in both groups was then assessed using a written posttest and by performing a TTE examination on a volunteer subject. TTE examinations were graded on the ability to acquire the correct image, image quality, anatomy identification, and time required to attain proper imaging by 2 blinded experts. A second training session incorporating "hands-on" training with a volunteer subject was conducted in a subset of 21 residents (n = 11 control, n = 10 simulation). The simulation group included additional simulator training. After the second session, another posttest on a volunteer subject was administered. RESULTS: Pretest scores revealed similar preintervention knowledge among residents (56.0% ± 11.9% vs 59.3% ± 11.0%, P = 0.25; control versus simulator group, respectively). The simulation group scored higher on all criteria after the first training session: written posttest (57.9% ± 8.8% vs 68.2% ± 10.1%; P < 0.001), volunteer subject posttest image quality scores (0 to 25 scale) (6.4 ± 3.5 vs 12.4 ± 4.2; P = 0.003), anatomy identification scores (0 to 25 scale) (8.3 ± 6.6 vs 17.8 ± 6.6; P = 0.003), and percentage correct views (50 ± 19 vs 78 ± 21; P < 0.001). After the second session, all scores were again improved in the simulation group: volunteer subject posttest image quality scores (9.6 ± 3.3 vs 15.6 ± 2.8; P = 0.002), anatomy identification scores: (17.6 ± 3.8 vs 22.8 2.4; P = 0.003), and percentage correct views (80 ± 16 vs 96 ± 8; P = 0.007). DISCUSSION: This prospective randomized study demonstrated that anesthesiology residents trained with simulation acquired better skills in TTE image acquisition and anatomy identification on volunteer subjects. The educational benefit of simulation persisted even with introduction of hands-on instruction with volunteer subjects in both groups. The impact of these short-term educational approaches on longer-term retention and actual clinical application warrants further investigation.