Still thinking about that back to school list?
Since point of care ultrasound is part of the curriculum, shouldn’t we provide all of our students with a convenient and safe way to track their scans and progress? We certainly think so!
We’re working on a plan with @EchoLog so stay tuned, more details to come in a couple of weeks!
The Sasksonic team
While the Sasksonic crew is taking July off – it looks like we’ll be starting up our 2018/19 courses with an EDE Course debut in Regina in August!
Here’s the line up thus far:
The EDE Course – Aug 7th, 2018 in Regina, SK.
The EDE Course (Classic Plus) – Sept 21st, Saskatoon, SK.
The EDE2 Course – Nov 23rd (pre-SEMAC X)
Interested in attending? email Sasksonic@gmail.com
The Sasksonic Team
Plane Brilliance @CAEP2018 SONOGAMES – Strengthening Connections
We called ourselves #PlaneBrilliance – a triple pun! To say that the 2018 U of S Teamwas competitive – well that would be the obvious understatement of the year. First off, we have to thank the organizers of this year’s epic Sonogames battle-off. We definitely did not anticipate the creativity, the indirect knowledge acquisition, and the challenge of balancing that desperate need to laugh while trying to scan your way to victory.
Day 1: The multi-team face off.
We recall people in ridiculously high wasted scrubs (we loved the look regardless), men in basketball jerseys from the 90s, teams with some serious poker faces, and of course the crowds that came to cheer on their home team. A special shout out goes to Dr. Roberts for being our lone supporter that first day (yes, everyone was there in spirit of course).
Day 2: The final three: U of T, U of S, & McGill.
Suddenly, the crowds were much larger. Apparently people heard of teams having to use strange tools to scan their way through various skill and knowledge testing stations. The curiosity of what went down that first day was just too much to hold people back. Also when your teammate’s head is practically in the laptop screen having the most epic verbal diarrhea moment naming scans at lightening speeds, it makes for a great show, and also near impossible to write down all thn answers. Yes, we had an injury: writer’s cramp. Don’t worry though, Owen recovered beautifully.
Nonetheless, we were up against solid teams, had epic life line moments (cough cough: Dr. Olszynski – we are getting over it), and of course that final battle between us and the U of T trio. Did we mention we don’t lose well? However, it is easier when the winning team is pretty darn strong (we now send our official congrats to the U of T Yoko Sono Team).
We returned home, with our second place medals, hilarious memories, and are hungry for that first place finish next year!
Thank-you to Dr. Olszynski for being the ultimate ultrasound guru, to Dr. Taylor for being our ultrasound sponsor, and to the U of S EM Residents for turning that conference room into a stadium-like cheering section. You never disappoint.
Until Next Year,
Drs. Bindi Brar @bindibrar, Quinten Paterson @qpaterson, and Owen Scheirer @O_Scheirer
After a successful first iteration in 2018, we are pleased to announce the return of the Clinical Ultrasonography Elective in Clerkship.
This elective is open to 4th year students (2nd year of clerkship) and will run from Feb 4th – 17th, 2019.
Details to register can be found here: CUSEC Feb 4-17 2019
Check out the abstract below (presented at Medical Education Scholarship and Research Day)
The Clinical Ultrasonography Elective in Clerkship (CU/SEC): A Pilot for Senior Clerkship Students at the University of Saskatchewan
Zafrina Poonja, Ali Turnquist, Paul Olszynski
PURPOSE: The objective of the clinical ultrasonography elective was for senior clerkship students to acquire the skills and knowledge to safely integrate into patient care the following clinical ultrasound applications: pneumothorax, interstitial lung syndrome, pleural effusion/hemothorax, free fluid in the abdomen, pericardial effusion, abdominal aortic aneurysm, hydronephrosis, and bladder volume. The elective was deliberately designed to be relevant to a range of trainees including those pursuing residency training in internal medicine, general surgery, pediatrics, emergency medicine, neurology, family medicine and anesthesia.
METHODS: The trainees spent the first week of the elective scanning several standardized patients (12 hours in total) under the supervision of myself, another EM clinician, and a PGY4 EM resident who is completing a fellowship in POCUS. Each afternoon, the trainees participated in group discussion as well as lead a short presentation on the limits of POCUS in our core set of applications. The trainee’s skills and knowledge were evaluated at the end of the first week through a practical exam (scanning 4 patients across 3 scenarios) and MCQ exam. During the second week (clinical rotations in EM, IM, GSx and Neurology) trainees were evaluated by the clinical supervisors with in regards to clinical integration of POCUS into overall patient care. Programmatic evaluation was completed by all participants.
RESULTS: The trainee’s MCQ marks ranged from 80-95% (pass was set at 80%) and using an entrustment score on the practical exams, each was deemed “able to perform all of the scans with minimal or no prompting or supervision”. During the second week (a clinical rotation with the service of their choice/interest) the trainees were deemed to meet and/or exceed expectations as follows: 1) knowledge of the indications for clinical ultrasonography, 2) ability to reliably generate adequate images on a variety of patients, 3) demonstrate the ability to integrate clinical ultrasonography findings into the patients overall clinical assessment, 4) ability to describe the limitations of clinical ultrasound as well as impact on patient work up. The program was evaluated as very valuable with suggestions offered for improving the second (clinical) week of the elective.
As the role of clinical ultrasonography continues to grow throughout healthcare, the need for clear communication of bedside findings has never been greater. We know that communication plays a major role in high quality healthcare, and that miscommunication has been identified as a major contributor to medical error and patient complaints.
Last year at SASKSONO17 (Breaking the Sound Barrier), we discussed the need for clear communication amongst clinicians. Our panel of experts (Internist, Intensivist, Emergentologist and Hospitalist) offered great advice on how best to communicate clinical ultrasound (aka POCUS) findings with colleagues and consultants (you can check out the 8 minute video here: https://vimeo.com/215476593).
But clear communication with colleagues is only one piece of the puzzle. The other big piece is clear communication with the patient! And while this may seem self-evident, we suggest there’s more to it than simply applying basic clinician-patient communication skills. For example, I am sure you have heard a trainee or colleague say to their patient, after having completed a bedside scan, that everything looks OK. Seems harmless doesn’t it? But to the patient, there is now a very real potential for misinterpretation of both the purpose of the scan, and the findings! Here at Sasksonic we’ve heard it first hand. Patients have returned to their primary care providers with impressive stories of whole body scans where their liver, spleen and kidneys were evaluated by ultrasound and “Great news doc, everything was OK!”
By not clearly stating the indications for the scan, or not clearly explaining the findings, clinicians may give their patients the wrong impression that they have undergone a much more comprehensive evaluation than intended or necessary. This can lead to a lot of headache and frustration by downstream providers who now find themselves rummaging through the patient’s medical record looking for the “whole body scans” (assumed to be either consultative ultrasound or CT scans) when no such studies were performed. Furthermore, in the absence of a consultative report (or worse yet, no comments regarding to the point of care ultrasound in the visit note), it can also negatively impact the status of clinical ultrasonography in the eyes of our colleagues and patients. As an important and evidence-based part of the clinical assessment (now proposed to be the 5th pillar of the bedside assessment – inspection, palpation, percussion, auscultation and insonation), we need to ensure our colleagues and patients understand the role clinical ultrasonography plays in patient care.
Whenever possible, clearly communicate with patients about the indications, findings and limitations of the clinical ultrasound scan in question. When performing a FAST scan this means letting the patient know you are looking for free fluid in the abdomen or chest, which if seen, would suggest internal bleeding. If no free fluid is seen, instead of saying “everything looks OK” we suggest you say “I don’t see any free fluid on my scan, but this clinical application of ultrasound has limitations and sometimes we miss injuries. Keeping the clinical picture in mind, I think we should proceed with…”
And there’s more! Whenever possible, be sure to give the patient a clear understanding of what the scan will include including where the transducer will be placed. Be sure to warn them about the room temperature gel that often feels ice cold. Then, while scanning, try to talk them through the findings as much as possible (this gets easier as your image generation skills improve). For example, when scanning the gallbladder for suspected cholelithiasis, take time to show them their gallbladder, what the wall looks like and whether there are any stones. Remember, one of the advantages of clinical ultrasonography is that you are learning about your patient’s (patho)physiology in real time at their bedside. So let the patient know what’s going on in the moment, tell them in a way they will understand, and quell their curiosity while also empowering them!
For an example of good communication with a patient (and other aspects of ultrasound etiquette) , check out this short clip we’ve prepared at Sasksonic for our trainees.
Paul Olszynski and Qasim Hussain
Peer Review: Drs. Kish Lyster and Irene Ma