There has been A LOT of talk about POCUS governance lately – and at USASK we are right in there with a recent publication in The Ultrasound Journal on our efforts to develop a consensus-based multidisciplinary POCUS framework.

This Saturday @USASKEM and @usask_CME are hosting the 11th Saskatchewan Emergency Medicine Annual Conference (SEMAC XI) in Saskatoon, SK. We will be reviewing the recently adopted (province wide) Saskatchewan Emergency Ultrasound Guidelines: STANDARDS FOR EMERGENCY ULTRASOUND Final

These are in keeping (and in fact exceed) the above USASK POCUS Framework and are also well aligned with CAEP’s recent EM POCUS Position Statement.

Here’s the Executive Summary for the Sask EUS Guidelines:

Emergency ultrasound (EUS) comprises a set of focused applications utilized to diagnose life-threatening conditions, guide invasive procedures, and treat emergency medical conditions. [2] The proposed standards take into account that emergency care, and thus EUS, is within the scope of emergency physicians, family physicians and nurse practitioners. Given the significant contextual and resource differences between urban/tertiary centres and rural/regional sites, recommendations related to training, privileging and quality assurance are tailored accordingly.

1. Scope includes use of ultrasound during emergency care to aid in diagnosis and procedures. Diagnostic applications include (but are not limited to) use of ultrasound in resuscitation (including focused cardiac and thoracic scans), in expediting diagnosis (including biliary, renal, venous applications), and in the assessment of musculoskeletal complaints (joints, fractures and soft tissue).
2. Training (and proof thereof) should include a clear induction to the ultrasound application(s) in question, followed by a supervised apprenticeship, and an objective assessment of knowledge and skill. This standard, when applied to core/basic applications, is attainable throughout all sites in the province. However, with many of the extended applications where clinicians in rural/regional sites may have little local expertise to rely on, exceptions are warranted. In these cases, rural clinicians who already have credentials in basic EUS are advised to develop clear plans (in consultation with their site/area EUS lead) for ongoing practice and self-audit. Residents who have received robust emergency ultrasound training are encouraged to submit supporting documents that outline the details of their performance within their residency-based ultrasound training program.
3. Privileges should be determined with the above training recommendations in mind, in recognition that not all credentials are created equally.
4.  Documentation of emergency ultrasound should include a note in the patient’s chart that is trackable for review. Major teaching centers are encouraged to make use of image capture technologies.
5. Quality assurance and improvement are now routine aspects of clinical practice. In urban/tertiary centres, this means continuous audits of group practice with feedback being provided to both individuals and the department from the site lead. In rural and regional centres where clinicians must balance a wide range of competing demands on time, emergency ultrasound should be included within broader quality improvement programs.
6. Leadership will include emergency ultrasound leads (site and/or area) and the Director of Emergency Ultrasound, in collaboration with all members of the Department of Emergency Medicine. These leaders will work collaboratively to support excellence in emergency ultrasound training, clinical care and research.

These standards represent one of many initiatives developed to help ensure high quality training in, and use of, EUS in the province of Saskatchewan.