Education research: 33. Evaluation of the First BSR Ultrasound Anatomy Training Course

Abstract

Background: The expansion of US availability has allowed increasing numbers of rheumatologists to perform MSKUS in clinic. As yet there is no formalized program of ultrasound learning or competency assesment for rheumatologists. Detailed understanding of 3D ultrasound anatomy is recommended by European authors but very few UK rheumatologists have recieved any formal anatomy training since medical school. Methods: The aim was to deliver a short anatomy training course in an anatomy laboratory for rheumatologists tailored to the published BSR ultrasound competency outcomes. The course was intended to be learner centred, clinically meaningful and as recommended in current anatomy teaching guidance the course would use a variety of learning techniques in small groups including dissected prosections, ultrasound demonstrations on living models, radiological images and 3D interactive software. This new course took place at Newcastle University Anatomy Laboratory with 15 delegates in October 2010. Results: In a specific questionaire survey of the 15 delegates (Likert scale 1-5, not agree at all-very much agree), the aims and objectives of the course were considered to have been acheived. AIMS: to help understanding and interpretation of the human anatomy encountered using US (4.5), facilitate progression through levels of US competency (3.7). OBJECTIVES: identification of the relevant anatomical structures using regional cadaveric anatomy (4), increase confidence in identifying anatomical structures using USS (3.5), and identification of surface anatomy of regional anatomical structures (3.9). The course methods recieved high scores - learner centred (4.3), clinically meaningful (4.6), and the tutors were considered to be experts in their field (4.8). In qualitative feedback, 3D anatomy skills were self reported “seriously deficient” prior to the course and opportunity to handle prosections was “highly valued”. There was some support for course attendance counting towards a formal postgraduate certificate in US, but limited interest among respondees in a formal anatomy assessment within the course (2.5). This one day course allowed very limited time for US practice which was a percieved deficiency (2.54). Conclusions: A coordinated approach is needed to ensure US competency among rheumatologists, and this short anatomy training course with expert tutors (radiologists, anatomists and rheumatologists with US skills) acheived specific aims and objectives including increased confidence in identifying anatomical structures using US, though it is not known if the course improved anatomy skills and knowledge.