RESUMO
One of the many physical exam skills introduced to medical students during their pre-clerkship education is cardiac auscultation, one purpose of which is to teach the detection and identification of heart murmurs. Cardiac auscultation with a stethoscope has been the standard method of teaching. Another method, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), has been recently introduced as another modality by which students learn to detect and identify murmurs. The emerging popularity of POCUS in undergraduate medical curricula has led many institutions to include it in their curricula; however, doing so is challenging. Not only is cost a major factor, but reorganizing curricula to allow sufficient time for POCUS training has proven to be difficult. Additionally, the presence of notable gaps in the literature regarding the efficacy of POCUS for teaching the detection and identification of heart murmur has increased scrutiny of its value. Studies that assessed teaching cardiac auscultation to medical students in their pre-clinical years via stethoscope have used different teaching methods. However, evaluation of these studies identified numerous limitations, one being little long-term retention of cardiac auscultation knowledge. Furthermore, several barriers to integration of POCUS in undergraduate medical education were identified. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the literature comparing the effectiveness of these different tools of a cardiac exam for detection of heart murmurs in undergraduate medical education and identify gaps in literature requiring future exploration.
RESUMO
Study objective The purpose of this study was to assess the use of podcasts among emergency medicine (EM) students, residents, and attending physicians for non-core content. Methods A survey was administered to medical students interested in emergency medicine, current residents of emergency medicine, and attending physicians to determine which podcasts, if any, they listen to and how often. The purpose of listening to these podcasts was also evaluated and determined it was to learn the non-core content of the specialty. The survey was administered online via multiple platforms including Google Forms (Google, Inc., Mountain View, CA), email, and Twitter (San Francisco, CA). The survey was also distributed via messaging application and word of mouth. Results There were 52 responses that were received on the survey. Of the respondents, 73.1% (N = 38) stated that they do listen to medical podcasts. Of these listeners, 21.2% (N = 11) stated that they listen to them once a year, 15.4% (N = 8) once a month, 11.5% (N = 6) once every two weeks, 19.2% (N = 10) weekly, 11.5% (N = 6) 1-2 days per week, 5.8% (N = 3) 3-4 days per week, 5.8% (N = 3) 5-6 days per week, and 9.6% (N = 5) daily. Based on the 52 responses received, 30.8% (N = 16) stated that they listen to them as a supplement to other sources of foundational content, 25% (N = 13) for general interest, 28.8% (N = 15) for entertainment, 7.7% (N = 4) as a primary resource to learn foundational content in their specialty, and 7.7% (N = 4) other. Based on the data metrics, 51.9% (N = 27) stated that 1-5 of the medical podcasts they listen to discuss the practice of emergency medicine, 44.2% (N = 23) stated that none do, and 3.8% (N = 2) stated that more than 10 do. The list of emergency medicine podcasts being listened to are as follows: EMplify, EM:RAP, EM Over Easy, EM Clerkship, Core EM, EM Basic, EMA, EM Cases, Internet Book of Critical Care, Pharm So Hard, EMCRIT, EM Board Bombs, PEM Rules, and REBEL CAST. When asked how important medical podcasts are for learning within the specialty, 44.2% (N = 23) reported not important, 26.9% (N = 14) reported somewhat important, and 28.8% (N = 15) reported very important. When asked how important medical podcasts are for learning outside the specialty, 40% (N = 20) reported not important, 48% (N = 24) reported somewhat important, and 12% (N = 6) stated very important. When asked if their program includes medical education podcasts as part of their curriculum, 18.4% (N = 9) responded yes, while 81.6% (N = 40) responded no. When asked if they believe medical education podcasts should be included as part of their curriculum, 52% (N = 26) stated yes, while 48% (N = 24) stated no. Conclusion Based on the results of the survey, roughly three-quarters of the surveyees listen to medical podcasts. Of the respondents, 38.5% (N = 20) stated that they listen to these podcasts as some form of supplement to learning content (7.7% (N = 4) primary and 30.8% (N = 16) supplementary), which explains the rising availability of the number of podcasts related to emergency medicine. Of the respondents stating that medical podcasts should be included in their curriculum, 52% (N = 26) signifies the importance of quality learning that these medical podcasts provide to their listeners.
