Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of a point-of-care ultrasound curriculum and ocular phantom in residency training

  • Published:
Journal of Ultrasound Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Specialized training in ocular ultrasound is not a focus for most emergency medicine residencies, despite the fact that it allows physicians to quickly and accurately identify ocular pathology and prioritize emergency ophthalmological consultations. Therefore, we tested the value of utilizing normal and pathologic ocular ultrasound phantoms as a training tool for residents. Twenty emergency medicine residents were given a pre-test including written and practical skills diagnosis of ocular phantom pathologies, a short video on common ocular pathologies, practice time with the phantoms and a post-test including written and scanning components. Residents were then asked to complete an overall evaluation of the learning activity. After didactic and hands-on training with phantoms, residents demonstrated a significant increase in knowledge, skills and preparedness for diagnosing real patients with ocular pathologies. Overall, the phantoms allowed residents an unrestricted opportunity to practice and refine their technique. This study provided a framework for teaching emergency medicine residents the basics of ocular US through a brief didactic and practical intervention using novel ocular pathology US phantoms. Our curriculum resulted in both objective and subjective improvement in residents' performance and understanding of ocular US.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stolz LA et al (2017) Emergency medicine resident assessment of the emergency ultrasound milestones and current training recommendations. Acad Emerg Med 24(3):353–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Blaivas M, Theodoro D, Sierzenski PR (2002) A study of bedside ocular ultrasonography in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 9(8):791–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hassen GW et al (2015) Accuracy of optic nerve sheath diameter measurement by emergency physicians using bedside ultrasound. J Emerg Med 48(4):450–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kilker BA, Holst JM, Hoffmann B (2014) Bedside ocular ultrasound in the emergency department. Eur J Emerg Med. 21(4):246–253. https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Messman AM (2015) Ocular injuries: new strategies in emergency department management. Emerg Med Pract 17(11):1–21 (quiz 21-2)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Presley BC, Flannigan MJ (2013) Emergency department bedside ultrasound diagnosis of retinoblastoma in a child. Pediatr Emerg Care 29(10):1128–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vrablik ME et al (2015) The diagnostic accuracy of bedside ocular ultrasonography for the diagnosis of retinal detachment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med 65(2):199-203.e1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wilkinson J, Sultan L (2014) Towards evidence-based emergency medicine: best BETs from the manchester royal infirmary BET 2: the use of bedside ultrasound in diagnosing retinal detachment in emergency department. Emerg Med J 31(4):337–339

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Yoonessi R, Hussain A, Jang TB (2010) Bedside ocular ultrasound for the detection of retinal detachment in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 17(9):913–917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Blumfield E et al (2015) Evaluation of an initiative to reduce radiation exposure from CT to children in a non-pediatric-focused facility. Emerg Radiol 22(6):631–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-015-1335-4 (Epub 2015 Aug 12)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Leung RS (2015) Radiation protection of the child from diagnostic imaging. Curr Pediatr Rev 11(4):235–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bentley S et al (2015) Are live ultrasound models replaceable? Traditional versus simulated education module for FAST exam. West J Emerg Med 16(6):818–822. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2015.9.27276 (Epub 2015 Oct 22)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Gresens AA et al (2012) Ultrasound-guided breast biopsy for surgical residents: evaluation of a phantom model. J Surg Educ 69(3):411–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mendiratta-Lala M et al (2010) The use of a simulation center to improve resident proficiency in performing ultrasound-guided procedures. Acad Radiol 17(4):535–540

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gonzales JLC (2012) Low cost ocular ultrasound phantom for the training in the diagnosis of the emergency eye pathology. Crit Ultrasound J 4(S1):A26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jafri F et al (2011) An inexpensive and easy simulation model of ocular ultrasound that mimics normal anatomy as well as abnormal ophthalmologic conditions. J Ultrasound Med 30:569–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Frances Lazarow, Sarah C. Shaves & Anthony P. Trace

  2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, 600 Gresham Drive, Suite 304 Raleigh Bldg, Norfolk, VA, 23501, USA

    Anna K. Deal, Barry Knapp & Donald Byars

  3. Department of Pathology and Anatomy, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Craig W. Goodmurphy & Carrie Ann Elzie

  4. School of Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA

    David Nunez

Authors
  1. Frances Lazarow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna K. Deal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah C. Shaves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Barry Knapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Donald Byars
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Craig W. Goodmurphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anthony P. Trace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. David Nunez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Carrie Ann Elzie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception, design and execution. All authors read and approved the final manuscript

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald Byars.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

FL, AD, SS, BK, DB, CG, AT, DN and CE report no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Reviewed and deemed exempt by EVMS IRB

Consent to participate

Verbal consent provided by all student

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lazarow, F., Deal, A.K., Shaves, S.C. et al. Evaluation of a point-of-care ultrasound curriculum and ocular phantom in residency training. J Ultrasound 25, 259–263 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-021-00578-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-021-00578-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation