How to adapt first trimester ultrasound education to tunisian trainees

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Dec 14, 2017
Download
pdf
Vol. 95 No. 4 (2017): Issue Apr 2017

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Kaouther Dimassi
Ahmed Halouani
Dalenda Chelli
Badis Chanoufi
Amel Triki
Mohamed Faouzi Gara

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of a targeted training program on the quality of NT measures performed by OBST/GYN trainees.
Methods: Prospective study. Step1: each trainee achieved 10 T1US . All were evaluated by 2 experts. Step 2: interactive training session where participants received a detailed feedback report. Step3: each candidate performed again 10 T1US. The results obtained before and after the training session were compared.
Results: Step1: Herman score was 4.1 with 38% of unacceptable exams. There was no correlation between the score and the level of the training curriculum. Main difficulty was about obtaining sagittal plane. Step2: self-assigned score before the session overestimated image quality (4.5 Vs. 4.1, p=0.03). At the end of the session, It decreased to 3.1. Step3: a significant improvement of technical settings, mean score (5.4 Vs. 4.1; p <0.001) , percentage of acceptable images (85% Vs. 62%, p = 0.002) and sagittal plane (6.4% Vs. 2.9%; p = 0.003). Only 37% had significantly improved their scores.
Conclusion: The training program evaluated in this study guides the trainee in his daily self-evaluation. This preliminary study can already open discussion on the education and quality control of the T1US in our country.

Keywords:

Audit; self-evaluation; feedback; nuchal translucency; quality control; screening; education;

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

References

  1. Herman A, Maymon R, Dreazen E, Caspi E, Bukovsky I, Weinraub Z. Nuchal translucency audit: a novel image-scoring method. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;12(6):398-403.
  2. Herman A, Maymon R, Dreazen E et al. Utilization of the nuchal translucency image-scoring method during training of new examiners. Fetal Diagn Ther 1999;14(4):234-9.
  3. Nicolaides KH, Snijders RJ, Cuckle HS. Correct estimation of parameters for ultrasound nuchal translucency screening. Prenat Diagn 1998;18(5):519-23.
  4. Coquel P, Guerin B. Echographie en pratique obstétricale 4ème édition. Paris: Elsevier Masson 2009.
  5. Fries N, Althuser M, Fontanges M et al. Quality control of an image-scoring method for nuchal translucency ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196(3):272-5.
  6. Wojdemann KR, Christiansen M, Sundberg K, Larsen SO, Shalmi A, Tabor A. Quality assessment in prospective nuchal translucency screening for Down syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;18(6):641-4.
  7. Bresson L, Devos P, Maillet A et al. Evaluation of a proximity training program of nuchal translucency measurements and of self-scoring. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2010;39(5):379-86.
  8. Dhombres F, Khoshnood B, Bessis R, Fries N, Senat MV, Jouannic JM. Quality of first-trimester measurement of crown-rump length. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211(6):672-5.
  9. Padula F, Capriglione S, Magliarditi M et al. Goal-directed junior ultrasound training in quantitative measurement of crown-rump length and fetal nuchal translucency: evaluation of a specific training program in a specialized center for prenatal diagnosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015;186:112-3.
  10. Logghe H, Cuckle H, Sehmi I. Centre-specific ultrasound nuchal translucency medians needed for Down syndrome screening. Prenat diagn. 2003;23(5):389-92.
  11. Sanders RC. Legal problems related to obstetrical ultrasound. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1998;847:220-7.
  12. Salomon LJ, Chalouhi GE, Bernard JP, Ville Y. Nuchal translucency thickness at 11-14 weeks of gestation: French charts and equations. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2009;38(8):635-41.
  13. Coquel P. Contrôle de qualité de dépistage de la trisomie 21 au premier trimestre avec BioNuchal: les 2 premiers millions de résultats. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015;41(4):6.
  14. Jordan A, El Haloui O, Breaud J et al. Training of residents in obstetrics and gynecology: Assessment of an educational program including formal lectures and practical sessions using simulators. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2015;43(7):560-7.
  15. Tassin M, Cordier AG, Laher G, Benachi A, Mandelbrot L. Amniocentesis trainer: development of a cheap and reproducible new training model. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2012;41(7):679-83.
  16. Crochet P, Aggarwal R, Berdah S et al. Current and future use of surgical skills simulation in gynecologic resident education: a French national survey. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2014;43(5):379-86.