The Role of Technology in the Bedside Encounter

Point-of-Care Ultrasound Predicts Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) detects the pulmonary manifestations of COVID-19 and may predict patient outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study at four hospitals from March 2020 to January 2021 to evaluate lung POCUS and clinical outcomes of COVID-19. Inclusion criteria included adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who received lung POCUS with a 12-zone protocol. Each image was interpreted by two reviewers blinded to clinical outcomes. Our primary outcome was the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission versus no ICU admission. Secondary outcomes included intubation and supplemental oxygen usage.

RESULTS

N = 160 patients were included. Among critically ill patients, B-lines (94 vs 76%; P < .01) and consolidations (70 vs 46%; P < .01) were more common. For scans collected within 24 hours of admission (N = 101 patients), early B-lines (odds ratio [OR] 4.41 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.71-14.30]; P < .01) or consolidations (OR 2.49 [95% CI: 1.35-4.86]; P < .01) were predictive of ICU admission. Early consolidations were associated with oxygen usage after discharge (OR 2.16 [95% CI: 1.01-4.70]; P = .047). Patients with a normal scan within 24 hours of admission were less likely to require ICU admission (OR 0.28 [95% CI: 0.09-0.75]; P < .01) or supplemental oxygen (OR 0.26 [95% CI: 0.11-0.61]; P < .01). Ultrasound findings did not dynamically change over a 28-day scanning window after symptom onset.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung POCUS findings detected within 24 hours of admission may provide expedient risk stratification for important COVID-19 clinical outcomes, including future ICU admission or need for supplemental oxygen. Conversely, a normal scan within 24 hours of admission appears protective. POCUS findings appeared stable over a 28-day scanning window, suggesting that these findings, regardless of their timing, may have clinical implications.

Lung Ultrasound Findings in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Lung ultrasound (LUS) can accurately diagnose several pulmonary diseases, including pneumothorax, effusion, and pneumonia. LUS may be useful in the diagnosis and management of COVID-19.

METHODS

This study was conducted at two United States hospitals from 3/21/2020 to 6/01/2020. Our inclusion criteria included hospitalized adults with COVID-19 (based on symptomatology and a confirmatory RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2) who received a LUS. Providers used a 12-zone LUS scanning protocol. The images were interpreted by the researchers based on a pre-developed consensus document. Patients were stratified by clinical deterioration (defined as either ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death within 28 days from the initial symptom onset) and time from symptom onset to their scan.

RESULTS

N = 22 patients (N = 36 scans) were included. Eleven (50%) patients experienced clinical deterioration. Among N = 36 scans, only 3 (8%) were classified as normal. The remaining scans demonstrated B-lines (89%), consolidations (56%), pleural thickening (47%), and pleural effusion (11%). Scans from patients with clinical deterioration demonstrated higher percentages of bilateral consolidations (50 versus 15%; P = .033), anterior consolidations (47 versus 11%; P = .047), lateral consolidations (71 versus 29%; P = .030), pleural thickening (69 versus 30%; P = .045), but not B-lines (100 versus 80%; P = .11). Abnormal findings had similar prevalences between scans collected 0-6 days and 14-28 days from symptom onset.

DISCUSSION

Certain LUS findings may be common in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, especially for those that experience clinical deterioration. These findings may occur anytime throughout the first 28 days of illness. Future efforts should investigate the predictive utility of these findings on clinical outcomes.

Interobserver Agreement of Lung Ultrasound Findings of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Lung ultrasound (LUS) has received considerable interest in the clinical evaluation of patients with COVID-19. Previously described LUS manifestations for COVID-19 include B-lines, consolidations, and pleural thickening. The interrater reliability (IRR) of these findings for COVID-19 is unknown.

METHODS

This study was conducted between March and June 2020. Nine physicians (hospitalists: n = 4; emergency medicine: n = 5) from 3 medical centers independently evaluated n = 20 LUS scans (n = 180 independent observations) collected from patients with COVID-19, diagnosed via RT-PCR. These studies were randomly selected from an image database consisting of COVID-19 patients evaluated in the emergency department with portable ultrasound devices. Physicians were blinded to any patient information or previous LUS interpretation. Kappa values (κ) were used to calculate IRR.

RESULTS

There was substantial IRR on the following items: normal LUS scan (κ = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.72-0.87]), presence of B-lines (κ = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.72-0.87]), ≥3 B-lines observed (κ = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.64-0.79]). Moderate IRR was observed for the presence of any consolidation (κ = 0.57 [95% CI: 0.50-0.64]), subpleural consolidation (κ = 0.49 [95% CI: 0.42-0.56]), and presence of effusion (κ = 0.49 [95% CI: 0.41-0.56]). Fair IRR was observed for pleural thickening (κ = 0.23 [95% CI: 0.15-0.30]).

DISCUSSION

Many LUS manifestations for COVID-19 appear to have moderate to substantial IRR across providers from multiple specialties utilizing differing portable devices. The most reliable LUS findings with COVID-19 may include the presence/count of B-lines or determining if a scan is normal. Clinical protocols for LUS with COVID-19 may require additional observers for the confirmation of less reliable findings such as consolidations.

Strategies to Improve Bedside Clinical Skills Teaching

The bedside encounter between a patient and physician remains the cornerstone of the practice of medicine. However, physicians and trainees spend less time in direct contact with patients and families in the modern healthcare system. The current pandemic has further threatened time spent with patients. This lack of time has led to a decline in clinical skills, and a decrease in the number of faculty who are confident in teaching at the bedside. In this review we offer several strategies to get physicians and trainees back to the bedside to engage in clinical skills teaching and assessment. We recommend that providers pause before bedside encounters to be present with patients and learners and develop clear goals for a bedside teaching session. We suggest that clinical teachers practice an evidence-based approach, including a hypothesis-driven physical examination. We encourage the use of point-of-care technology to assist in diagnosis and allow learners to calibrate traditional physical exam skills with real-time visualization of pathology. Tools like point-of-care ultrasound can be powerful levers to get learners excited about bedside teaching, and to engage patients in their clinical care. We value telemedicine visits as unique opportunities to engage with patients in their home environment and to participate in patient-directed physical exam maneuvers. Finally, we recommend that educators provide feedback to learners on specific clinical exam skills, whether in the clinic, the wards, or during dedicated clinical skills assessments.

The Modern Physical Exam - A Transatlantic Perspective from the Resident Level

Issue: The physical examination has been in decline for many years and poorer skills contribute to medical errors and adverse events. Diagnostic error is also increasing with the complexity of medicine. Comparing the physical examination in Ireland and the United States with a focus on education, assessment, culture, and health systems may provide insight into the decline of the physical exam in the United States, uncover possible strategies to improve clinical skills, and limit diagnostic error. Evidence: The physical exam is a core component of both undergraduate and postgraduate medical education in Ireland. This is reflected by the time and effort invested by medical schools and medical societies in Ireland in teaching and assessing skills. This high standard of skills results in the physical exam being a key component of the diagnostic process and a gatekeeper to expensive investigations essential in a resource-limited health system such as Ireland. Use of the physical exam in the United States is hindered by the high-tech transformation of healthcare and a more litigious society. Known strategies to highlight the role of the physical exam in clinical practice include creating an evidence base to show that better physical exam skills improve outcomes, identifying accurate physical exam maneuvers, stressing the therapeutic alliance the physical exam brings to the patient encounter, and the incorporation of technology into the bedside exam. Implications: Contrasting the education and clinical use of the physical examination in the United States with Ireland allowed us to identify a number of strategies which could be used to promote the physical exam among learners in both countries. Highlighting simple and pragmatic physical exam maneuvers combined with evidence-based physical exam diagnostic data may renew confidence in the physical exam as a core diagnostic tool. Use of the hypothesis-driven approach may streamline a clinician's physical exam during a patient encounter, focusing on the key examination components and avoiding unnecessary and low yield maneuvers. The absence of assessment of physical exam skills using real patients in United States licensing exams communicates to learners that these skills are not important. However, steps to introduce a culture of assessment to drive learning are being introduced. One area Ireland could learn from the United States is incorporating more technology into the bedside exam. Enhanced physical examination skills in both countries could reduce reliance on expensive investigations and improve diagnostic accuracy.

Portable Ultrasound Device Usage and Learning Outcomes Among Internal Medicine Trainees: A Parallel-Group Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how to effectively train residents with point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) despite increasing usage.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess whether handheld ultrasound devices (HUDs), alongside a year-long lecture series, improved trainee image interpretation skills with POCUS.

METHODS

Internal medicine intern physicians (N = 149) at a single academic institution from 2016 to 2018 participated in the study. The 2017 interns (n = 47) were randomized 1:1 to receive personal HUDs (n = 24) for patient care vs no-HUDs (n = 23). All 2017 interns received a repeated lecture series regarding cardiac, thoracic, and abdominal POCUS. Interns were assessed on their ability to interpret POCUS images of normal/abnormal findings. The primary outcome was the difference in end-of-the-year assessment scores between interns randomized to receive HUDs vs not. Secondary outcomes included trainee scores after repeating lectures and confidence with POCUS. Intern scores were also compared with historical (2016, N = 50) and contemporaneous (2018, N = 52) controls who received no lectures.

RESULTS

Interns randomized to HUDs did not have significantly higher image interpretation scores (median HUD score: 0.84 vs no-HUD score: 0.84; P = .86). However, HUD interns felt more confident in their abilities. The 2017 cohort had higher scores (median 0.84), compared with the 2016 historical control (median 0.71; P = .001) and 2018 contemporaneous control (median 0.48; P < .001). Assessment scores improved after first-time exposure to the lecture series, while repeated lectures did not improve scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite feeling more confident, personalized HUDs did not improve interns' POCUS-related knowledge or interpretive ability. Repeated lecture exposure without further opportunities for deliberate practice may not be beneficial for mastering POCUS.

Morning report innovation: Case Oriented Report and Exam Skills

Morning report is a valuable educational conference but is often a stand-alone classroom-based discussion which misses the opportunity for bedside education. In this report, we describe an innovative morning report structure - the Case Oriented Report and Exam Skills (CORES) - that addresses this pitfall of the traditional case conference format and brings learners to the bedside. The key components of CORES include highlighting concepts of clinical reasoning, emphasizing evidence-based and hypothesis-driven physical exam (HDPE), and integrating emerging bedside technologies such as point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS).

Evaluation of Trainee Competency with Point-of-Care Ultrasonography (POCUS): a Conceptual Framework and Review of Existing Assessments

Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) has the potential to transform healthcare delivery through its diagnostic expediency. Trainee competency with POCUS is now mandated for emergency medicine through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), and its use is expanding into other medical specialties, including internal medicine. However, a key question remains: how does one define "competency" with this emerging technology? As our trainees become more acquainted with POCUS, it is vital to develop validated methodology for defining and measuring competency amongst inexperienced users. As a framework, the assessment of competency should include evaluations that assess the acquisition and application of POCUS-related knowledge, demonstration of technical skill (e.g., proper probe selection, positioning, and image optimization), and effective integration into routine clinical practice. These assessments can be performed across a variety of settings, including web-based applications, simulators, standardized patients, and real clinical encounters. Several validated assessments regarding POCUS competency have recently been developed, including the Rapid Assessment of Competency in Echocardiography (RACE) or the Assessment of Competency in Thoracic Sonography (ACTS). However, these assessments focus mainly on technical skill and do not expand upon other areas of this framework, which represents a growing need. In this review, we explore the different methodologies for evaluating competency with POCUS as well as discuss current progress in the field of measuring trainee knowledge and technical skill.