制定、衡量和实现空中医疗转运项目中临床医生使用床旁超声波的最低熟练标准

Q3 Nursing Air Medical Journal Pub Date : 2024-06-17 DOI:10.1016/j.amj.2024.05.022
Robert Beckl BSN, CFRN, FP-C, CHSE, Allen Wolfe MSN, CNS, APRN, CFRN, CCRN, CTRN, TCRN, CMTE, FAASTN, Megan Hartigan BSN, RN, NPD-BC, Brian Dotts RN, CFRN, Johanna Thompson FP-C, Travis Sievek FP-C
{"title":"制定、衡量和实现空中医疗转运项目中临床医生使用床旁超声波的最低熟练标准","authors":"Robert Beckl BSN, CFRN, FP-C, CHSE,&nbsp;Allen Wolfe MSN, CNS, APRN, CFRN, CCRN, CTRN, TCRN, CMTE, FAASTN,&nbsp;Megan Hartigan BSN, RN, NPD-BC,&nbsp;Brian Dotts RN, CFRN,&nbsp;Johanna Thompson FP-C,&nbsp;Travis Sievek FP-C","doi":"10.1016/j.amj.2024.05.022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>One of the challenges in the implementation of point-of-care ultrasound in air medical transport is establishing a minimum proficiency standard and subsequently ensuring that all clinicians meet this standard. It is also challenging to objectively measure the effectiveness of hands-on ultrasound training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of proficiency among all clinicians in the program, measure the effectiveness of hands-on training, and to assess the feasibility of establishing and enforcing a minimum proficiency standard for all clinicians.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>116 flight clinicians, all previously trained in point-of-care ultrasound, participated in a training session in which they were tasked with acquiring six diagnostic ultrasound views on live models. At the beginning of the session, their performance was evaluated by a trained observer and scored. Each view was given a score of 3 points if obtained proficiently with no guidance (minimum proficiency standard), 2 points if obtained with only slight prompting, and 1 point if obtained with significant guidance from the observer. The clinicians then participated in a guided training session and those who did not previously receive a perfect score of all threes, were reevaluated and scored again. Each clinician also completed a survey before and after the session in which they rated their confidence with their ability to obtain each view.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The average score during the initial evaluation was 2.66 with 32 of the 116 clinicians (28%) obtaining a perfect score. The average score for those who were reevaluated at the conclusion of the training was 2.91 with 55 additional clinicians obtaining a perfect score. In the initial evaluation, 14 clinicians required significant guidance with one or more views. In the reevaluation this number fell to one. At the conclusion of the training, 75% of the clinicians were able to obtain all six diagnostic views with the desired minimum proficiency. In the initial confidence survey, when averaged across the six views, 1% of clinicians rated their confidence level as not at all, 5% as slightly, 20% as somewhat, 45% as fairly, and 28 % as completely. In the follow-up survey the results were 0% not at all, 0% slightly, 4% somewhat, 25% fairly, and 71% completely.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The baseline proficiency level in obtaining the diagnostic ultrasound views approved by our program was less than desirable. However, given the fact that a single training session resulted in the increase in number of clinicians who met the minimum standard from 28% to 75%, it is feasible to achieve a 100% compliance with this standard with additional training. Future research will focus on the amount and frequency of use and training required to maintain this proficiency once achieved. Another component of minimum proficiency not discussed here is the accuracy of interpretation of the diagnostic views, measured by a recurrent exam and quality assurance review process.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":35737,"journal":{"name":"Air Medical Journal","volume":"43 4","pages":"Page 367"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Establishing, Measuring, and Achieving a Minimum Proficiency Standard with Point-of-Care Ultrasound Among Clinicians in an Air Medical Transport Program\",\"authors\":\"Robert Beckl BSN, CFRN, FP-C, CHSE,&nbsp;Allen Wolfe MSN, CNS, APRN, CFRN, CCRN, CTRN, TCRN, CMTE, FAASTN,&nbsp;Megan Hartigan BSN, RN, NPD-BC,&nbsp;Brian Dotts RN, CFRN,&nbsp;Johanna Thompson FP-C,&nbsp;Travis Sievek FP-C\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.amj.2024.05.022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>One of the challenges in the implementation of point-of-care ultrasound in air medical transport is establishing a minimum proficiency standard and subsequently ensuring that all clinicians meet this standard. It is also challenging to objectively measure the effectiveness of hands-on ultrasound training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of proficiency among all clinicians in the program, measure the effectiveness of hands-on training, and to assess the feasibility of establishing and enforcing a minimum proficiency standard for all clinicians.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>116 flight clinicians, all previously trained in point-of-care ultrasound, participated in a training session in which they were tasked with acquiring six diagnostic ultrasound views on live models. At the beginning of the session, their performance was evaluated by a trained observer and scored. Each view was given a score of 3 points if obtained proficiently with no guidance (minimum proficiency standard), 2 points if obtained with only slight prompting, and 1 point if obtained with significant guidance from the observer. The clinicians then participated in a guided training session and those who did not previously receive a perfect score of all threes, were reevaluated and scored again. Each clinician also completed a survey before and after the session in which they rated their confidence with their ability to obtain each view.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The average score during the initial evaluation was 2.66 with 32 of the 116 clinicians (28%) obtaining a perfect score. The average score for those who were reevaluated at the conclusion of the training was 2.91 with 55 additional clinicians obtaining a perfect score. In the initial evaluation, 14 clinicians required significant guidance with one or more views. In the reevaluation this number fell to one. At the conclusion of the training, 75% of the clinicians were able to obtain all six diagnostic views with the desired minimum proficiency. In the initial confidence survey, when averaged across the six views, 1% of clinicians rated their confidence level as not at all, 5% as slightly, 20% as somewhat, 45% as fairly, and 28 % as completely. In the follow-up survey the results were 0% not at all, 0% slightly, 4% somewhat, 25% fairly, and 71% completely.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The baseline proficiency level in obtaining the diagnostic ultrasound views approved by our program was less than desirable. However, given the fact that a single training session resulted in the increase in number of clinicians who met the minimum standard from 28% to 75%, it is feasible to achieve a 100% compliance with this standard with additional training. Future research will focus on the amount and frequency of use and training required to maintain this proficiency once achieved. Another component of minimum proficiency not discussed here is the accuracy of interpretation of the diagnostic views, measured by a recurrent exam and quality assurance review process.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35737,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Air Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"43 4\",\"pages\":\"Page 367\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Air Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1067991X24001196\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Air Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1067991X24001196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标 在空中医疗转运中实施护理点超声检查的挑战之一是建立最低熟练标准,并随后确保所有临床医生都达到这一标准。客观衡量超声波实践培训的效果也是一项挑战。本研究的目的是评估项目中所有临床医生的熟练程度,衡量实践培训的效果,并评估为所有临床医生建立和执行最低熟练标准的可行性。方法 116 名飞行临床医生都曾接受过护理点超声培训,他们参加了一次培训课程,任务是在活体模型上获取六个超声诊断视图。培训开始时,由一名训练有素的观察员对他们的表现进行评估和评分。如果在没有指导的情况下熟练获取每个视图(最低熟练标准),则可获得 3 分;如果仅在稍加提示的情况下获取视图,则可获得 2 分;如果在观察者的大力指导下获取视图,则可获得 1 分。随后,临床医生参加了指导培训课程,并对之前未获得所有三项满分的临床医生进行了重新评估和评分。每位临床医生还在培训前后填写了一份调查表,对自己获得每个视图的能力进行信心评分。结果初次评估的平均得分是 2.66 分,116 名临床医生中有 32 人(28%)获得满分。培训结束后重新评估的平均得分是 2.91 分,另有 55 名临床医生获得满分。在初次评估中,有 14 名临床医生在一个或多个观点上需要大量指导。在重新评估中,这一数字下降到了 1。培训结束时,75% 的临床医生都能以所需的最低熟练度获得所有六个诊断视图。在最初的信心调查中,如果对六种诊断视图进行平均,1% 的临床医生认为他们的信心水平为完全没有信心,5% 为稍有信心,20% 为有点信心,45% 为相当有信心,28% 为完全有信心。在后续调查中,完全没有信心的占 0%,略有信心的占 0%,有信心的占 4%,比较有信心的占 25%,完全有信心的占 71%。然而,鉴于单次培训就能使达到最低标准的临床医生人数从 28% 增加到 75%,因此,通过额外培训实现 100% 达标是可行的。未来的研究将重点关注达到这一标准后,保持这一熟练程度所需的使用量和培训频率。本文未讨论的最低熟练度的另一个组成部分是诊断视图解释的准确性,通过重复检查和质量保证审查过程来衡量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Establishing, Measuring, and Achieving a Minimum Proficiency Standard with Point-of-Care Ultrasound Among Clinicians in an Air Medical Transport Program

Objectives

One of the challenges in the implementation of point-of-care ultrasound in air medical transport is establishing a minimum proficiency standard and subsequently ensuring that all clinicians meet this standard. It is also challenging to objectively measure the effectiveness of hands-on ultrasound training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of proficiency among all clinicians in the program, measure the effectiveness of hands-on training, and to assess the feasibility of establishing and enforcing a minimum proficiency standard for all clinicians.

Methods

116 flight clinicians, all previously trained in point-of-care ultrasound, participated in a training session in which they were tasked with acquiring six diagnostic ultrasound views on live models. At the beginning of the session, their performance was evaluated by a trained observer and scored. Each view was given a score of 3 points if obtained proficiently with no guidance (minimum proficiency standard), 2 points if obtained with only slight prompting, and 1 point if obtained with significant guidance from the observer. The clinicians then participated in a guided training session and those who did not previously receive a perfect score of all threes, were reevaluated and scored again. Each clinician also completed a survey before and after the session in which they rated their confidence with their ability to obtain each view.

Results

The average score during the initial evaluation was 2.66 with 32 of the 116 clinicians (28%) obtaining a perfect score. The average score for those who were reevaluated at the conclusion of the training was 2.91 with 55 additional clinicians obtaining a perfect score. In the initial evaluation, 14 clinicians required significant guidance with one or more views. In the reevaluation this number fell to one. At the conclusion of the training, 75% of the clinicians were able to obtain all six diagnostic views with the desired minimum proficiency. In the initial confidence survey, when averaged across the six views, 1% of clinicians rated their confidence level as not at all, 5% as slightly, 20% as somewhat, 45% as fairly, and 28 % as completely. In the follow-up survey the results were 0% not at all, 0% slightly, 4% somewhat, 25% fairly, and 71% completely.

Conclusions

The baseline proficiency level in obtaining the diagnostic ultrasound views approved by our program was less than desirable. However, given the fact that a single training session resulted in the increase in number of clinicians who met the minimum standard from 28% to 75%, it is feasible to achieve a 100% compliance with this standard with additional training. Future research will focus on the amount and frequency of use and training required to maintain this proficiency once achieved. Another component of minimum proficiency not discussed here is the accuracy of interpretation of the diagnostic views, measured by a recurrent exam and quality assurance review process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Air Medical Journal
Air Medical Journal Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
112
审稿时长
69 days
期刊介绍: Air Medical Journal is the official journal of the five leading air medical transport associations in the United States. AMJ is the premier provider of information for the medical transport industry, addressing the unique concerns of medical transport physicians, nurses, pilots, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, communication specialists, and program administrators. The journal contains practical how-to articles, debates on controversial industry issues, legislative updates, case studies, and peer-reviewed original research articles covering all aspects of the medical transport profession.
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents Editorial Board Psychomotor Vigilance Testing on Neonatal Transport: A Western Australian Experience Pericardiocentesis During Transport for Cardiac Tamponade Complicating Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Recent Outcomes Research in Helicopter Emergency Medical Services: A Scoping Review of Publication Year 2023 Additions to the Helicopter Outcomes Assessment Research Database
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1