International multispecialty consensus on how to evaluate ultrasound competence: a Delphi consensus survey

Martin G Tolsgaard, Tobias Todsen, Jette L Sorensen, Charlotte Ringsted, Torben Lorentzen, Bent Ottesen, Ann Tabor, Martin G Tolsgaard, Tobias Todsen, Jette L Sorensen, Charlotte Ringsted, Torben Lorentzen, Bent Ottesen, Ann Tabor

Abstract

Objectives: To achieve international consensus across multiple specialties on a generic ultrasound rating scale using a Delphi technique.

Methods: Ultrasound experts from Obstetrics-Gynaecology, Surgery, Urology, Radiology, Rheumatology, Emergency Medicine, and Gastro-Enterology representing North America, Australia, and Europe were identified. A multi-round survey was conducted to obtain consensus between these experts. Of 60 invited experts, 44 experts agreed to participate in the first Delphi round, 41 remained in the second round, and 37 completed the third Delphi round. Seven key elements of the ultrasound examination were identified from existing literature and recommendations from international ultrasound societies. All experts rated the importance of these seven elements on a five-point Likert scale in the first round and suggested potential new elements for the assessment of ultrasound skills. In the second round, the experts re-rated all elements and a third round was conducted to allow final comments. Agreement on which elements to include in the final rating scale was pre-defined as more than 80% of the experts rating an element four or five, on importance to the ultrasound examination.

Results: Two additional elements were suggested by more than 10% of the experts in the first Delphi round. Consensus was obtained to include these two new elements along with five of the original elements in the final assessment instrument: 1) Indication for the examination 2) Applied knowledge of ultrasound equipment 3) Image optimization 4) Systematic examination 5) Interpretation of images 6) Documentation of examination and 7) Medical decision making.

Conclusion: International multispecialty consensus was achieved on the content of a generic ultrasound rating scale. This is the first step to ensure valid assessment of clinicians in different medical specialties using ultrasound.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Baseline characteristics of experts agreeing…
Figure 1. Baseline characteristics of experts agreeing to participate in the Delphi study.

References

    1. European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine (2010) Minimum training requirements for the practice of Medical Ultrasound in Europe. Ultraschall Med 31: 426–427.
    1. Moore CL, Copel JA (2011) Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med 24: 749–757.
    1. Akhtar S, Theodoro D, Gaspari R, Tayal V, Sierzenski P, et al. (2009) Resident training in emergency ultrasound: consensus recommendations from the 2008 Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors Conference. Acad Emerg Med 16: 32–36.
    1. Salvesen KA, Lees C, Tutschek B (2010) Basic European ultrasound training in obstetrics and gynecology: where are we and where do we go from here? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 36: 525–529.
    1. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H (2000) Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 32: 1008–1015.
    1. Nathens AB, Rivara FP, Jurkovich GJ, Maier RV, Johansen JM, et al. (2003) Management of the injured patient: identification of research topics for systematic review using the delphi technique. J Trauma 54: 595–601.
    1. Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna H (2006) Consulting the oracle: ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. J Adv Nurs 53: 205–212.
    1. Palter VN, MacRae HM, Grantcharov TP (2011) Development of an objective evaluation tool to assess technical skill in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a Delphi methodology. Am J Surg 201: 251–259.
    1. Palter VN, Graafland M, Schijven MP, Grantcharov TP (2012) Designing a proficiency-based, content validated virtual reality curriculum for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a Delphi approach. Surgery 151: 391–397.
    1. de Villiers MR, de Villiers PJ, Kent AP (2005) The Delphi technique in health sciences education research. Med Teach 27: 639–643.
    1. Nodine CF, Kundel HL (1987) Eye Movements: From Psychology to Cognition. North Holland: Elsevier Science. p572.
    1. Crowley RS, Naus GJ, Stewart J 3rd, Friedman CP (2003) Development of visual diagnostic expertise in pathology - an information-processing study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 10: 39–51.
    1. Balslev T, de Grave WS, Muijtjens AM, Scherpbier AJ (2010) Enhancing diagnostic accuracy among nonexperts through use of video cases. Pediatrics 125: 570–576.
    1. Krupinski EA (2011) The role of perception in imaging: past and future. Semin Nucl Med 41: 392–400.
    1. Dreyfus HL, Dreyfus SE, Athanasiou T (1986) Mind Over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. New York: Free Press. p16.
    1. Krathwohl DR (2002) A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy–An overview. Theory Into Practice 41: 212–218.
    1. Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, et al. (1997) Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 84: 273–278.
    1. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM). Recommendations available at: . Accessed October 30th 2012.
    1. European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB). Recommendations available at: . Accessed October 30th 2012.
    1. Malterud K (2001) Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 11: 483–488.
    1. Morgan PJ, Lam-McCulloch J, Herold-McIlroy J, Tarshis J (2007) Simulation performance checklist generation using the Delphi technique. Can J Anaesth 54: 992–997.
    1. Cheung JJ, Chen EW, Darani R, McCartney CJ, Dubrowski A, et al. (2012) The creation of an objective assessment tool for ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia using the Delphi method. Reg Anesth Pain Med 37: 329–333.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman G (2008) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford Medical Publications. p248.
    1. Brown AK, O’Connor PJ, Roberts TE, Wakefield RJ, Karim Z, et al. (2006) Ultrasonography for rheumatologists: the development of specific competency based educational outcomes. Ann Rheum Dis 65: 629–636.
    1. Hofer M, Kamper L, Sadlo M, Sievers K, Heussen N (2011) Evaluation of an OSCE assessment tool for abdominal ultrasound courses. Ultraschall Med 32: 184–190.
    1. Hodges B, Regehr G, McNaughton N, Tiberius R, Hanson M (1999) OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise. Acad Med 74: 1129–1134.
    1. Hodges B, McIlroy JH (2003) Analytic global OSCE ratings are sensitive to level of training. Med Educ 37: 1012–1016.
    1. Ma IW, Zalunardo N, Pachev G, Beran T, Brown M, et al. (2012) Comparing the use of global rating scale with checklists for the assessment of central venous catheterization skills using simulation. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 17: 457–70.
    1. Jang TB, Coates WC, Liu YT (2012) The competency-based mandate for emergency bedside sonography training and a tale of two residency programs. Ultrasound Med 31: 515–521.
    1. Jang TB, Ruggeri W, Dyne P, Kaji AH (2010) The learning curve of resident physicians using emergency ultrasonography for cholelithiasis and cholecystitis. Acad Emerg Med 17: 1247–1252.
    1. Shah S, Teismann N, Zaia B, Vahidnia F, River G, et al. (2010) Accuracy of emergency physicians using ultrasound to determine gestational age in pregnant women. Am J Emerg Med 28: 834–838.
    1. Hertzberg BS, Kliewer MA, Bowie JD, Carroll BA, DeLong DH, et al. (2000) Physician training requirements in sonography: how many cases are needed for competence? Am J Roentgenol 174: 1221–1227.
    1. Jang T, Aubin C, Naunheim R (2004) Minimum training for right upper quadrant ultrasonography. Am J Emerg Med 22: 439–443.
    1. Graham B, Regehr G, Wright JG (2003) Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 56: 1150–1156.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe