Approach to Formalized Ultrasound Credentialing in a Community Hospital Health System with both Academic and Non-Academic Clinical Settings.

In the US, ultrasound in Emergency Medicine (EM) is widely considered the standard of care in clinical practice amongst most Emergency Department providers. At the authors' institution and affiliates, there were a variety of health care providers utilizing ultrasound for clinical practice, and their skill levels varied, dependent on training and exposure. As an attempt to standardize credentialing practice and determine need for additional training thresholds, the authors endeavored to perform a skills assessment utilizing both written and clinical based practical assessments. A 7 point questionnaire was administered to a convenience sample of providers requesting formal training information, number of ultrasounds performed, and self-assessed competency. A 10 point written assessment with ultrasound knowledge and clinical application questions was also administered. A subsequent clinical assessment on live humans and models was then performed with multiple stations assessing 15 different instrumentation skills and technique, as well as image interpretation and evaluation. A total of 23 attending EM board-certified physicians, and four advanced practice providers (PA and NP) took the credentialing assessments scoring an average of 7.3 out of 10 (SD 0.83) for the written assessment. Twenty (71%) of the 28 tested passed the clinical evaluation on their initial attempt. Five (17%) passed on a first remediation. Three (10%) required more than one initial revision attempt. All those who did remediate were able to complete the revision with a passing score. Overall, the testing was considered a successful process. This program appears to have offered a level of standardization that was appealing to the credentialing body at our institution. We were able to assess to a level of competence considered standard of care by national credentialing bodies.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare no conflict of interest.