A prospective randomized study to compare standard versus intensive training strategies on long-term improvement in critical care ultrasonography proficiency

Abstract

BackgroundCritical care ultrasonography (CCUS) has become a daily diagnostic tool for intensivists. While the effective training measures for ultrasound novices are discussed widely, the best curriculum for the novices to retain a long-term proficiency is yet to be determined.MethodsCritical care medicine fellows who underwent an introductory CCUS workshop were randomly allocated into the standard training (ST) or the intensive training (IT) group. The IT group received an 8-h training besides the standardized fellowship education that the ST group received. Participant improvement in CCUS proficiency tests (maximum score, 200) after a 6-month training intervention was compared between the groups. CCUS examinations performed in patient care were observed over 2 years.ResultsTwenty-one fellows were allocated into the ST (n = 10) or the IT (n = 11) group. No statistically significant difference was observed in the median (interquartile range [IQR]) improvement in CCUS proficiency tests between the ST group and the IT group: 18 (3.8–38) versus 31 (21–46) (P = .09). Median (IQR) test scores were significantly higher in postintervention than preintervention for both groups: ST, 103 (87–116) versus 124 (111–143) (P = .02), and IT, 100 (87–113) versus 143 (121–149) (P < .01). Participating fellows performed 226 examinations over the 2 years of observation.ConclusionsFellows improved their CCUS proficiency significantly after 6-month training intervention. However, an additional 8-h training did not provide further benefits.