Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Nov 20;15(11):e0242084. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242084

The long-term effect of short point of care ultrasound course on physicians’ daily practice

Ortal Tuvali 1,#, Re'em Sadeh 1,2,*,#, Sergio Kobal 1,3, Shaked Yarza 1,2, Yael Golan 4, Lior Fuchs 1,5
Editor: Etsuro Ito6
PMCID: PMC7678973  PMID: 33216765

Abstract

Background

The benefits of Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) are well established in the literature. As it is an operator-dependent modality, the operator is required to be skilled in obtaining and interpreting images. Physicians who are not trained in POCUS attend courses to acquire the basics in this field. The effectiveness of such short POCUS courses on daily POCUS utilization is unknown. We sought to measure the change in POCUS utilization after practicing physicians attended short POCUS courses.

Methods

A 13-statements questionnaire was sent to physicians who attended POCUS courses conducted at the Soroka University Medical Center between the years 2014–2018. Our primary objective was to compare pre-course and post-course POCUS utilization. Secondary objectives included understanding the course graduates’ perceived effect of POCUS on diagnosis, the frequency of ultrasound utilization and time to effective therapy.

Results

212 residents and specialists received the questionnaire between 2014–2018; 116 responded (response rate of 54.7%). 72 (62.1%) participants were male, 64 (55.2%) were residents, 49 (42.3%) were specialists, 3 (2.5%) participants did not state their career status. 90 (77.6%) participants declared moderate use or multiple ultrasound use six months to four years from the POCUS course, compared to a rate of ‘no use at all’ and ‘minimal use of 84.9% before the course. 98 participants [84.4% CI 77.8%, 91.0%] agree and strongly agree that a short POCUS course may improve diagnostic skills and 76.7% [CI 69.0%, 84.3%] agree and strongly agree that the POCUS course may shorten time to diagnosis and reduce morbidity.

Conclusions

Our short POCUS course significantly increases bedside ultrasound utilization by physicians from different fields even 4 years from course completion. Course graduates strongly agreed that incorporating POCUS into their clinical practice improves patient care. Such courses should be offered to residents and senior physicians to close the existing gap in POCUS knowledge among practicing physicians.

Introduction

Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) is being utilized for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes worldwide in many medical fields [1]. Its implementation as part of the physical examination improves patient management and reduces diagnostic uncertainty and improving accuracy [24].

The advantages of POCUS are well established in the literature; its vast assistance in the assessment and diagnosis of patients presenting with hypotension, chest pain or acute dyspnea [57], as well as, the diagnosis of DVT and guiding invasive procedures such as tracheostomy, central venous and arterial line insertion, paracentesis and thoracentesis [8, 9].

Nevertheless, POCUS is an operator-dependent modality which requires operators to be familiar with the technique in order to successfully obtain images and interpret them correctly [10]. Obtaining ultrasound images is especially difficult when it comes to obese and emphysematous patients, due to poor penetration of the sonographic waves; such cases require a highly skilled operator [11]. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of CT and CXR is restricted, thus making POCUS an ever more valuable tool. Considering the above, proper training in POCUS is necessary [12].

In recent years, POCUS training has been integrated into many medical schools’ curriculum [13]. Physicians who were not trained in POCUS in medical school attend different short POCUS courses, hoping to acquire the basics in this field. The effectiveness of such short POCUS courses, on real life daily POCUS utilization is still unknown.

Only few studies have measured the impact of POCUS courses on physicians' ultrasound performance and interpretation abilities [1416]. None described changes in ultrasound utilization in physicians' daily practice pre and post short POCUS course, months to years after such courses were attended by physicians.

We sought to measure the change in POCUS daily utilization, post short POCUS courses, among practicing physicians.

Methods

A five-day POCUS course is conducted once to twice a year at the Soroka University Medical Center since 2013. The course is designated for physicians from different specialties, such as anesthesia, critical care, internal medicine, emergency medicine, and pediatrics. The course is designed for physicians with no previous POCUS training.

Course participants undergo five days of training, including over 13 hours of hands-on practice and 18 hours of lectures. In short, the course syllabus includes cardiac ultrasound anatomy, POCUS utilization for the differential diagnoses of shock, POCUS for vascular access, lung ultrasound, assessment of volume status and fluid responsiveness as well as exposure to numerous relevant clinical cases (S1 Appendix: Course curriculum).

A 13-statements questionnaire was sent to all the physicians that participated in the courses which took place between the years 2014–2018 (S2 Appendix: Questionnaire). The questionnaire was sent to all participants at the same time. The time gap from course graduation to the filling of the questionnaire varied between responders but was not less than six months and up to four years from course graduation for all participants. This time gap was chosen to assess the true long-term effect of the short POCUS course on reported ultrasound utilization and physicians’ perception of this modality. Participants were asked to select their level of agreement with the questionnaire's various statements, using the responses: "Strongly disagree"; "Disagree"; "Neutral"; "Agree", and "Strongly agree", scaled from 0–4.

The questionnaire was designed primarily to compare pre-course and post-course POCUS utilization. Secondary objectives were to describe course graduates’ perceived effect of POCUS on the diagnostic abilities, the frequency of ultrasound utilization, the time to effective therapy, on patients’ outcomes, and on the level of confidence to use this bedside modality (S2 Appendix: Questionnaire). Baseline data as a type of physicians’ specialty and seniority was also collected.

The Soroka University Medical Center ethical committee granted waver for informed consent and approved the research.

Statistical analysis

Population characteristics were shown with numbers and percentages.

Trend test and Chi square test were used to analyze the pre and post course answers about the frequency of use of POCUS. This analysis was assessed in the general population, and in subgroups of gender, degree, year of course, and location of the hospital. In addition, the delta between the pre and post course answers, divided by years, was shown in a bar chart.

The answers for other questions were displayed in a bar chart and a distribution table that show how many people answered each answer and the percentages received for each answer. Reliability analysis was conducted on the questionnaire, and Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to show the reliability accepted for each questionnaire (α = 0.84). All the questions would show no significant increase in the alpha if they were deleted.

All statistical tests were performed at α = 0.05 (2-sided) using IBM SPSS software, version 25.

Results

212 residents and specialists received, between 2014–2018, a web-based questionnaire at least six months and up to 4 years following completion of the course they attended. Of them, 116 responded (response rate of 54.7%). 72 (62.1%) participants were male, 64 (55.2%) were residents, 49 (42.3%) were specialists, 3 (2.5%) participants did not state their career status. Participants’ medical fields and additional baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Participants characteristics.

Variables Number of participants (n %)
Gender, N males (%) 72 (62.1%)
Degree, N residents (%) 64 (55.2%)
Specialty, N (%) Anesthesia & Critical Care 27 (23.3%)
Cardiology & Cardiac Surgery 3 (2.6%)
Emergency Medicine 10 (8.6%)
Internal Medicine 65 (56%)
Surgery 5 (4.3%)
Pediatric 4 (3.4%)

Ultrasound utilization increased significantly after the course

Ultrasound utilization post POCUS course increased significantly with a rate of ‘no use at all’ and ‘minimal use only’ of 84.9% before the course, which dropped to 22.4% after the course. 90 participants (77.6%) declared "moderate use" "or multiple use" post POCUS course compared to 18 participants (16%) before the course (P- value < 0.001, P for Trend = 0.01) (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Ultrasound utilization in daily practice.

Fig 1

The perceived effect of POCUS course on patients' care

90 participants [75.8%, CI 68.01%,83.59%] agree or strongly agree with the statement that incorporating POCUS into their practice will improve the care they provide to patients (Fig 2).

Fig 2. To what extent do you believe incorporating POCUS into your practice will improve the care you provide patients?

Fig 2

The perceived effect of POCUS course on the quality of diagnosis

98 participants [84.4%, CI 77.8%, 91.0%] agree and strongly agree with the statement that a short Point of Care ultrasound course may improve diagnostic skills (Fig 3).

Fig 3. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: A short point of care ultrasound course improve diagnostic skills?

Fig 3

Fig 4 illustrates that most participants agree and strongly agree [92.2% CI 87.32%,97.88%] with the statement that point of care ultrasound is a diagnostic modality that can provide a more accurate and quicker diagnosis for several disease processes.

Fig 4. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: Point of care ultrasound is a diagnostic modality that can be used by clinicians to provide more accurate and quicker for several disease processes?

Fig 4

In Fig 5, 76.7% [CI 69.0%, 84.3%] of participants agree and strongly agree that the POCUS course may shorten time to diagnosis, thus may reduce morbidity.

Fig 5. Do you agree with the following statement: Short POCUS course may shorten time to diagnosis thus may reduce morbidity?

Fig 5

The results in Fig 6 from the statement: “Incorporation of POCUS as part of physicians’ daily practice will influence patients’ outcome and recovery” showed that 31.9% [CI 23.4%, 40.3%] participants agree or strongly agree with the statement while about half of participants (44.8% [CI 38.76%, 53.84%]) moderately agreed with the statement above.

Fig 6. Do you think incorporating POCUS as a part of your daily practice may influence on your patients' outcome and recovery (e.g. length of hospital stays, admission rate etc.)?

Fig 6

The great majority of responders (110 participants, 94.8% [CI 86.4%, 100%]) agree and strongly agree that the POCUS course should be an integral part of both residents’ and specialists’ medical training (Fig 7). In addition, as Fig 8 shows, most POCUS course graduates (85.3% [CI 78.86%, 91.74%, (P value = 0.04)] agree and strongly agree that their ultrasound skills improved following the course.

Fig 7. Do you think POCUS course should be an integral part both residents' and specialists' medical training?

Fig 7

Fig 8. Have your ultrasound skills improved due to this course?

Fig 8

Only 24 (20.7%) have had some previous training in this field (Fig 9). Furthermore, 87% participants would recommend their colleagues to take part in the POCUS course (Fig 10).

Fig 9. Have you ever had similar previous training in this filed?

Fig 9

Fig 10. Would you recommend this course to your colleagues?

Fig 10

Of 116 participants, 66 (56.8%) graduates stated a great or extreme intention to integrate POCUS into their routine clinical care after the course (Fig 11). This is while there was no association between the time that elapsed from the course (from six months to four years) and the delta in ultrasound utilization pre and post the course (Fig 12).

Fig 11. How likely are you to integrate POCUS into your clinical care after the course?

Fig 11

Fig 12. Delta of the frequency of US utilization before and after the course, stratified by year; there was no association found between the delta of US utilization and the time that passed since training (S3 Appendix).

Fig 12

As for the limitations of POCUS technique, 78.4% of participants proclaimed a great or extreme comfort with the ultrasound machine and their ability to operate it within different clinical scenarios after the course (Fig 13).

Fig 13. How comfortable do you feel with your understanding of the ultrasound machine and your ability to operate it within different clinical scenarios after the course?

Fig 13

Among all participants, 86.2% [CI 79.93%, 92.47%] agree and strongly agree with the statement that they feel comfortable with their understanding of the capabilities and limitations of POCUS (Fig 14).

Fig 14. How comfortable do you feel with your understanding of the capabilities ad limitations of POCUS?

Fig 14

Discussion

In this study, we found that a short POCUS course has a great impact on the daily practice of physicians, increasing ultrasound utilization, improving perceived patients care, and improving perceived physicians’ diagnostic skills. This was true even four years from the course and across all subspecialties.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to show that teaching practicing physicians how to conduct and utilize bedside ultrasound in various clinical scenarios and, in a relatively short period time, changes physicians’ daily practice by increasing the frequency of ultrasound utilization at the bedside. Moreover, participants reported that they recognize the importance and contribution of integrating POCUS as an integral part of their daily practice. They also see it as a tool that improves diagnostic skills and enables a faster and more accurate diagnosis.

Only few studies describe different POCUS course methods and their impact. A previous prospective study of 17 Rwandan physicians participating in a 10-day-long POCUS training, in a resource-limited setting, found an improvement in the participants’ knowledge, job satisfaction, and patient care. They did not measure the change in daily ultrasound utilization. Neither did they measure its utilization one year or more after the course (14). Another study examined the impact of a course of seven sessions, each session two hours long. 16 surgical residents participated in the study, in which it was found that surgical residents showed an improvement in self-efficacy and confidence levels across a broad range of skills [15].

An additional study measured the impact of a single-day intensive bedside ultrasound workshop followed by two optional hour-long workshops for 33 internal medicine interns, revealing a significant increase in assessment performance [16].

Our study shows that a relatively short, 5-day-long POCUS course is successful in changing both residents’ and specialists’ daily routine, as long as four years after the course, among a large number of participants from many different subspecialties. We bring forward evidence that it is feasible to teach novice physicians, in a short POCUS training, how to conduct bedside lung and cardiac ultrasound and implementing it in their daily practice.

We found that course graduates strongly agree with the perception that this modality is significantly helpful in the diagnosis and management of their patients, eventually assisting the physicians in performing more productively. This perception explains why there is an increase in the utilization of POCUS in their daily practice. However, surprisingly enough only 31.9% agreed that POCUS may influence their patients’ outcome and recovery, such as shortening hospitalization duration, reducing admission rate, etc. In addition, we showed that a short course could improve physicians’ bedside skills and change patient management in the long term. We found no association between time from the course and the frequency of ultrasound utilization (S3 Appendix). Even years after the course, the increased ultrasound daily utilization continued, showing that this is a real practice change and not only short-term course effect. For our course graduates, this course initiated a learning process that resulted in a change in clinical practice increasing their ultrasound utilization significantly and altering their patients’ bedside assessment and care.

There are several limitations to this study. The primary objective was answered by comparing pre and post POCUS course data, derived from the questionnaire, showing a significant increase in daily POCUS utilization. Even though the course participants demonstrated a significant change in patient management as well as potential to reduce morbidity and mortality (Figs 213), increasing their confidence in their daily work, this does not guarantee that they are fully competent in the use of ultrasound. Further research is needed in order to understand the direct effect of a short POCUS training process on patient management and on physicians’ POCUS skills.

Second, like any questionnaire-based study, there is an integrated selection bias stemming from the decision of some of the course participants to answer the questionnaire and some who chose not to. Nevertheless, the relatively high response rate of 55% may reduce the effect of this bias.

Lastly, all the presented data is subjective. We did not perform any objective measurements of ultrasound utilization before or after the course (such as the number of used gel bottles). However, all participants served as their own historical controls, comparing each participant’s ultrasound utilization rate prior to the course to the utilization at the time of the questionnaire.

There is a knowledge gap between physicians trained in POCUS during medical school and residency and those who were not. In this era of COVID-19, POCUS was utilized repeatedly at the bedside, as other imaging modalities were less available. This illustrates the importance of this modality. Nowadays, we face a challenge of how to increase the know-how of this effective, augmented, physical bedside examination [17].

Conclusions

Our five-day POCUS course significantly increases bedside ultrasound utilization by physicians from different fields in the short and long term, as long as four years from graduation. Course graduates strongly agreed that incorporating POCUS into their clinical practice improves the care they provide to patients. Such courses should be offered to residents and senior physicians to close the existing gap in POCUS knowledge among practicing physicians.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset. Participants answers.

(XLSX)

S1 Appendix. Point of care ultrasound curriculum.

(DOCX)

S2 Appendix. ‘Point of care ultrasound’ course- questionnaire.

(DOCX)

S3 Appendix. Comparison of participants’ answers stratified by year of the US course.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Royse CF, Canty DJ, Faris J, Haji DL, Veltman M, Royse A. Core review: Physician-performed ultrasound: The time has come for routine use in acute care medicine. Anesth Analg. 2012;115(5):1007–28. 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31826a79c1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dietrich CF, Goudie A, Chiorean L, Cui XW, Gilja OH, Dong Y, et al. Point of Care Ultrasound: A WFUMB Position Paper. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2017;43(1):49–58. 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.06.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Silva JP, Plescia T, Molina N, Tonelli AC de O, Langdorf M, Fox JC. Randomized study of effectiveness of computerized ultrasound simulators for an introductory course for residents in Brazil. J Educ Eval Health Prof [Internet]. 2016;13:16 Available from: 10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Neri L, Storti E, Lichtenstein D. Toward an ultrasound curriculum for critical care medicine. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(5 SUPPL). 10.1097/01.CCM.0000260680.16213.26 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Atkinson PR, Milne J, Diegelmann L, Lamprecht H, Howlett MK, Mekwan J, et al. Does Point-of-Care Ultrasonography Improve Clinical Outcomes in Emergency Department Patients With Undifferentiated Hypotension An International Randomized Controlled Trial From the SHoC-ED Investigators. Ann Emerg Med [Internet]. 2018;1–12. Available from: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Chen Z, Hong Y, Dai J, Xing L. Incorporation of point-of-care ultrasound into morning round is associated with improvement in clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with sepsis. J Clin Anesth [Internet]. 2018;48(3):62–6. Available from: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.05.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Girard M, Migner-Laurin G. Time for a New Consensus on Lung Ultrasonography. Chest [Internet]. 2016;150(4):986–7. Available from: 10.1016/j.chest.2015.10.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Labovitz AJ, Noble VE, Bierig M, Goldstein SA, Jones R, Kort S, et al. Focused cardiac ultrasound in the emergent setting: A consensus statement of the American society of Echocardiography and American College of Emergency Physicians. J Am Soc Echocardiogr [Internet]. 2010;23(12):1225–30. Available from: 10.1016/j.echo.2010.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Killu K, Coba V, Mendez M, Reddy S, Adrzejewski T, Huang Y, et al. Model point-of-care ultrasound curriculum in an intensive care unit fellowship program and its impact on patient management. Crit Care Res Pract. 2014;2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bhagra A, Tierney DM, Sekiguchi H, Soni NJ. Point-of-Care Ultrasonography for Primary Care Physicians and General Internists. Mayo Clin Proc [Internet]. 2016;91(12):1811–27. Available from: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.08.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Abu-Zidan F. Point-of-care ultrasound in critically ill patients: Where do we stand? J Emerg Trauma Shock [Internet]. 2012;5(1):70 Available from: http://www.onlinejets.org/text.asp?2012/5/1/70/93120 10.4103/0974-2700.93120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sikachi R, Agrawal A. Whole Body Point-Care Ultrasound for COVID-19: A Multi-System Approach to a Multi-System Disease. Anaesthesia, 2020. 10.1111/anae.15087 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Evaluation D, Spring S. Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Medical Education—Stop Listening. 2014;1083–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Henwood PC, Mackenzie DC, Rempell JS, Douglass E, Dukundane D, Liteplo AS, et al. Intensive point-of-care ultrasound training with long-term follow-up in a cohort of Rwandan physicians. Trop Med Int Heal. 2016;21(12):1531–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Confidence R. HHS Public Access. 2016;72(4):1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Clay RD, Lee EC, Kurtzman MF, Dversdal RK. Teaching the internist to see: effectiveness of a 1-day workshop in bedside ultrasound for internal medicine residents. Crit Ultrasound J. 2016;8(1):4–9. 10.1186/s13089-016-0040-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Vetrugno L, Bove T, Orso D, Barbariol F, Bassi F, Boero E, et al. Our Italian Experience Using Lung Ultrasound for Identification, Grading and Serial Follow-Up of Severity of Lung Involvement for Management of Patients With COVID-19. Echocardiography, 2020. 37(4):625–627. 10.1111/echo.14664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Etsuro Ito

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

1 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-19295

The Long-Term Effect of Short Point of Care Ultrasound Course on Physicians’ Daily Practice

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sadeh,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 15 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Etsuro Ito

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments:

The reviewers think your manuscript is worth for publication. But before that please revise your manuscript slightly.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript primary's goal is to evaluate the incorporation of point-of-care ultrasound into the routine of physicians after a course given at Soroka University. The authors used a questionnaire to assess the primary outcome and other variables; each physician's pre-course time was used as control. The rate of responders was reasonable (55%), and overall, they felt the course had changed their practice.

Comments and suggestions to the authors:

Major comment:

From 116 responders(specified in the abstract and the results), 64 were residents, and 49 were specialists. What about the other 3? It is not specified throughout the manuscript.

Minor comments:

Figure 9: in the main text (pg 10, line 220), it is described that this figure is about previous training in this field. However, in the legend of the figure, it is not specified that it is previous training - consider specifying it.

Figure 12: it is not clear by the legend of the graphic's meaning. I realized it is the delta of changing in the answers, in which questions were categorized and attributed punctuation of 1. Although this information is in the main text, consider clarifying it.

Page 28: table "comparison of the answers to questions between the different years of the course" is without legend and enumeration. Also, this table is in the main text, readers are not aware of the questions' content. Consider moving this table to the appendix, as each question is described there.

Reviewer #2: Thankyou for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

This paper provides some evidence that attending an ultrasound course increases your use of ultrasound after. It also increase your confidence afterwards. Both these results are perhaps expected but may well not have been published before. My major concern is that you do not address the difference between the confidence of the respondents (which you present here) and their competence - the two are very different. And without assessing their competence we cannot know if patient care is improved, or morbidity reduced etc. We know that confidence and competence are not that well linked in educational terms (candidates who are confident and use much more ultrasound may not actually be competent to do so). This has to be acknowledged in the discussion in my view. The other things to be considered:

- I do not believe that the results section is the place to write that some results are controversial (line 209). Results should merely be stated in this section. The place to discuss their relevance (controversial or not) is the discussion. I would suggest this result is surprising rather than controversial

- I would be wary of stating that your response rate makes your results reliable. they are still subject to the extreme biases you mention (those that reply are by definition more likely to be interested in ultrasound and it's use). I agree the response rate is good, but I think a better phrasing would be that it reduces the chances of these biases' is a more appropriate sentence

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Nov 20;15(11):e0242084. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242084.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Oct 2020

Response to Reviewers

The long-term effect of short point of care ultrasound course on physicians’ daily practice

Dear reviewers,

We thank you very much for your comments. In light of the great impact that the POCUS course described in our paper has had on many physicians, we believe it is important to research this topic. We feel that these remarks have helped us to fine tune our paper and better understand its results.

Reviewer #1:

1. From 116 responders (specified in the abstract and the results), 64 were residents, and 49 were specialists. What about the other 3? It is not specified throughout the manuscript.

a. We have added this specification: “64 (55.2%) were residents, 49 (42.3%) were specialists, 3 (2.5%) participants did not state their career status”

2. Figure 9: in the main text (pg 10, line 220), it is described that this figure is about previous training in this field. However, in the legend of the figure, it is not specified that it is previous training - consider specifying it.

a. Completed

3. Figure 12: it is not clear by the legend of the graphic's meaning. I realized it is the delta of changing in the answers, in which questions were categorized and attributed punctuation of 1. Although this information is in the main text, consider clarifying it.

a. The legend was rephrased: “Delta of the frequency of US utilization before and after the course, stratified by year; there was no association found between the delta of US utilization and the time that passed since training (Appendix 3)”

4. Page 28: table "comparison of the answers to questions between the different years of the course" is without legend and enumeration. Also, this table is in the main text, readers are not aware of the questions' content. Consider moving this table to the appendix, as each question is described there.

a. We fully agree with this remark, changes were made

Reviewer #2

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

This paper provides some evidence that attending an ultrasound course increases your use of ultrasound after. It also increases your confidence afterwards. Both these results are perhaps expected but may well not have been published before.

1. My major concern is that you do not address the difference between the confidence of the respondents (which you present here) and their competence - the two are very different. And without assessing their competence we cannot know if patient care is improved, or morbidity reduced etc. We know that confidence and competence are not that well linked in educational terms (candidates who are confident and use much more ultrasound may not actually be competent to do so). This has to be acknowledged in the discussion in my view

a. We agree, the following sentence was rephrased in the discussion: “Even though the course participants demonstrated a significant change in patient management as well as potential to reduce morbidity and mortality (fig 2-13), increasing their confidence in their daily work, this does not guarantee that they are fully competent in the use of ultrasound. Further research is needed in order to understand the direct effect of a short POCUS training process on patient management and on physicians’ POCUS skills.”

2. I do not believe that the results section is the place to write that some results are controversial (line 209). Results should merely be stated in this section. The place to discuss their relevance (controversial or not) is the discussion. I would suggest this result is surprising rather than controversial

a. We have rephrased controversial to surprising and moved it to discussion:“However, surprisingly enough only 31.9% agreed that POCUS may influence their patients’ outcome and recovery, such as shortening hospitalization duration, reducing admission rate, etc.”

3. I would be wary of stating that your response rate makes your results reliable. they are still subject to the extreme biases you mention (those that reply are by definition more likely to be interested in ultrasound and it's use). I agree the response rate is good, but I think a better phrasing would be that it reduces the chances of these biases' is a more appropriate sentence

a. Agree, the following sentence was phrased again: “Nevertheless, the relatively high response rate of 55% may reduce the effect of this bias”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Etsuro Ito

27 Oct 2020

The Long-Term Effect of Short Point of Care Ultrasound Course on Physicians’ Daily Practice

PONE-D-20-19295R1

Dear Dr. Sadeh,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Etsuro Ito

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for your revision.

Acceptance letter

Etsuro Ito

4 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-19295R1

The long-term effect of short point of care ultrasound course on physicians’ daily practice

Dear Dr. Sadeh:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Etsuro Ito

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Dataset. Participants answers.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Appendix. Point of care ultrasound curriculum.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Appendix. ‘Point of care ultrasound’ course- questionnaire.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Appendix. Comparison of participants’ answers stratified by year of the US course.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES