RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasound can evaluate for pulmonary edema, but data suggest moderate inter-rater reliability among users. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed as a model to increase the accuracy of B line interpretation. Early data suggest a benefit among more novice users, but data are limited among average residency-trained physicians. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of AI versus real-time physician assessment for B lines. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study of adult Emergency Department patients presenting with suspected pulmonary edema. We excluded patients with active COVID-19 or interstitial lung disease. A physician performed thoracic ultrasound using the 12-zone technique. The physician recorded a video clip in each zone and provided an interpretation of positive (≥3 B lines or a wide, dense B line) or negative (<3 B lines and the absence of a wide, dense B line) for pulmonary edema based upon the real-time assessment. A research assistant then utilized the AI program to analyze the same saved clip to determine if it was positive versus negative for pulmonary edema. The physician sonographer was blinded to this assessment. The video clips were then reviewed independently by two expert physician sonographers (ultrasound leaders with >10,000 prior ultrasound image reviews) who were blinded to the AI and initial determinations. The experts reviewed all discordant values and reached consensus on whether the field (i.e., the area of lung between two adjacent ribs) was positive or negative using the same criteria as defined above, which served as the gold standard. RESULTS: 71 patients were included in the study (56.3% female; mean BMI: 33.4 [95% CI 30.6-36.2]), with 88.3% (752/852) of lung fields being of adequate quality for assessment. Overall, 36.1% of lung fields were positive for pulmonary edema. The physician was 96.7% (95% CI 93.8%-98.5%) sensitive and 79.1% (95% CI 75.1%-82.6%) specific. The AI software was 95.6% (95% CI 92.4%-97.7%) sensitive and 64.1% (95% CI 59.8%-68.5%) specific. CONCLUSION: Both the physician and AI software were highly sensitive, though the physician was more specific. Future research should identify which factors are associated with increased diagnostic accuracy.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (COVID-19) caused widespread clinical disease, triggering limited in-person gatherings and social-distancing guidelines to minimize transmission. These regulations led most emergency medicine (EM) residency training programs to rapidly transition to virtual didactics. We sought to evaluate EM resident perceptions of the effects of COVID-19 on their didactic and clinical education. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey study at seven EM residency programs using a mixed-methods approach designed to understand resident perceptions regarding the impact of COVID-19 on their educational experience. Quantitative data were presented as percentages with comparison of subgroups, while open-ended responses were analyzed using qualitative methodology. RESULTS: We achieved a 59% response rate (187/313). The majority of respondents (119/182, 65.4%) reported that the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on their residency education with junior residents disproportionately affected. A total of 81 of 182 (44.5%) participants reported that one or more of their clinical rotations were partially or completely canceled due to the pandemic. Additionally, we identified four themes and 34 subthemes highlighting the contextual effects of the pandemic, which were then divided into positive and negative influences on the residency experience. The four themes include systems experience, clinical experience, didactic experience, and wellness. CONCLUSION: Our study examined the impact of COVID-19 on residents' educational experiences. We found overall mixed responses with a slightly negative impact on residency education, wellness, and clinical rotations, while satisfaction with EM as a career choice was increased. Factors influencing this included systems, clinical, and didactic experiences as well as overall wellness.
RESUMEN
The COVID-19 pandemic requires a substantial change to the traditional approach to conference didactics. Switching to a virtual medium for conference sessions presents several challenges, particularly with regard to aspects that rely heavily on in-person components (e.g., simulation, ultrasound). This paper will discuss the challenges and strategies to address them for conference planning in the era of COVID-19.