HOME HELP CONTACT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES SEARCH		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Résumé Full Text Full Text (PDF) Rapid Responses: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Woo, M. Y. Articles by Lee, A. C. PubMed Articles by Woo, M. Y. Articles by Lee, A. C. Related Collections Résumés de recherche

Emergency medicine ultrasonography

National survey of family medicine–emergency medicine program directors

Chris Nussbaum, MD CCFP(EM)
CCFP(EM) Program Director and an Assistant Professor in the departments of emergency and family medicine at the University of Ottawa

A. Curtis Lee, PhD
Educational Scientist in the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Ottawa and Senior Psychometrician for the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada

Correspondence: Dr Michael Y. Woo, Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9; e-mailmwoo{at}ottawahospital.on.ca

OBJECTIVE To survey program directors of family medicine–emergency medicine (CCFP[EM]) training programs regarding current and future emergency medicine ultrasonography (EMUS) training.

DESIGN A Web-based survey using a modified Dillman method. Two academic emergency physicians reviewed the validity and reliability of the survey.

SETTING Canada.

PARTICIPANTS Program directors of all 17 Canadian CCFP(EM) residency training programs in 2006.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Characteristics of EMUS training currently offered and program directors’ perceptions of needs for future EMUS training.

RESULTS The survey, performed in 2006, had a response rate of 100% (17/17), although not all respondents answered all questions. At the time of the study, 82.4% of respondents’ programs used EMUS. Although all program directors recommended that residents attend introductory EMUS courses, only 71.4% (10/14) of programs offered such courses; 60.0% (9/15) of those were mandatory. In one-third of the programs, more than 75% of the attending staff used EMUS. A total of 76.5% of program directors thought that introductory courses in EMUS should be mandatory; 62.5% (10/16) believed that residents were able to acquire sufficient experience to use EMUS independently to make practice decisions before completion of their residency; and 88.2% believed that EMUS should be a part of the scope of practice for emergency medicine physicians. Only 58.8% believed that there should be questions about EMUS on the CCFP(EM) Certification examination. Open responses indicated that funding, resources, and standardization were issues that needed to be addressed.

CONCLUSION Formal EMUS training for CCFP(EM) programs is being introduced in Canada. Quality assurance needs to be strengthened. Most program directors thought that an introductory course in EMUS should be mandatory. Fewer directors, however, believed EMUS should be on the CCFP(EM) Certification examination until further funding, resources, and standardization of EMUS programs were in place.