A survey demonstrating that the procedural experience of residents in internal medicine, critical care and emergency medicine is poor: training in ultrasound is required to rectify this

The Ultrasound Journal

Table 4 Residents’ procedural experience: combined procedural experience with and without ultrasound guidance

Specialty	IM (N, %)	CC (N, %)	EM (N, %)	All (N, %)
Specialty	Total (98)	Total (16)	Total (30)	Total (144)
All procedures
None	25 (25.5%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (6.7%)	27 (19%)
US	44 (44.9%)	16 (100.0%)	28 (93.3%)	88 (61%)
Landmark	66 (67.3%)	10 (62.5%)	18 (60.0%)	94 (65%)
US and landmark	37 (37.8%)	10 (62.5%)	18 (60.0%)	65 (45%)
US only	7 (7.1%)	6 (37.5%)	10 (33.3%)	23 (16%)
Landmark only	29 (29.6%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	29 (20%)
Drainage procedures
None	35 (35.7%)	6 (37.5%)	9 (30.0%)	50 (35%)
US	17 (17.3%)	9 (56.3%)	21 (70.0%)	47 (33%)
Landmark	57 (58.2%)	3 (18.8%)	10 (33.3%)	70 (49%)
US and landmark	11 (11.2%)	2 (12.5%)	10 (33.3%)	23 (16%)
US only	6 (6.1%)	7 (43.8%)	11 (36.7%)	24 (17%)
Landmark only	46 (46.9%)	1 (6.3%)	0 (0.0%)	47 (33%)

This table presents numbers of residents with any procedural experience stratified by technique (i.e. landmark techniques and ultrasound guidance). The numbers presented exceed the total number of participants because some residents had performed procedures using both landmark techniques and ultrasound guidance. The stratum entitled “Drainage procedures” includes thoracentesis, pericardiocentesis, paracentesis and arthrocentesis. The stratum entitled “All procedures” includes the drainage procedures as well as the vascular access procedures (i.e. peripheral and central venous catheterization). Data are stratified by specialty and presented as frequency. Data for internal medicine stratified by postgraduate year of training and gender are presented in Additional file 2: Appendix 2: Table 8. CC critical care, EM emergency medicine, F female, IM Internal Medicine, L landmark, M male, N number of respondents, US ultrasound, PGY postgraduate year of training