Background: Critical care ultrasonography (CCUS) is increasingly applied also in the intensive care unit (ICU) and performed by non-experts, including even medical students. There is limited data on the training efforts necessary for novices to attain images of sufficient quality. There is no data on medical students performing CCUS for the measurement of cardiac output (CO), a hemodynamic variable of importance for daily critical care. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the agreement of cardiac output measurements as well as the quality of images obtained by medical students in critically ill patients compared to the measurements obtained by experts in these images. Methods: In a prospective observational cohort study, all acutely admitted adults with an expected ICU stay over 24 h were included. CCUS was performed by students within 24 h of admission. CCUS included the images required to measure the CO, i.e., the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter and the velocity time integral (VTI) in the LVOT. Echocardiography experts were involved in the evaluation of the quality of images obtained and the quality of the CO measurements. Results: There was an opportunity for a CCUS attempt in 1155 of the 1212 eligible patients (95%) and in 1075 of the 1212 patients (89%) CCUS examination was performed by medical students. In 871 out of 1075 patients (81%) medical students measured CO. Experts measured CO in 783 patients (73%). In 760 patients (71%) CO was measured by both which allowed for comparison; bias of CO was 0.0 L min −1 with limits of agreement of − 2.6 L min −1 to 2.7 L min −1. The percentage error was 50%, reflecting poor agreement of the CO measurement by students compared with the experts CO measurement. Conclusions: Medical students seem capable of obtaining sufficient quality CCUS images for CO measurement in the majority of critically ill patients. Measurements of CO by medical students, however, had poor agreement with expert measurements. Experts remain indispensable for reliable CO measurements.

Longitudinal evaluations of critically ill patients by combinations of clinical examination, biochemical analysis and critical care ultrasonography (CCUS) may detect adverse events of interventions such as fluid overload at an early stage. The Simple Intensive Care Studies (SICS) is a research line that focuses on the prognostic and diagnostic value of combinations of clinical variables. The SICS-I specifically focused on the use of clinical variables obtained within 24 h of acute admission for prediction of cardiac output (CO) and mortality. Its sequel, SICS-II, focuses on repeated evaluations during ICU admission. The first clinical examination by trained researchers is performed within 3 h after admission consisting of physical examination and educated guessing. The second clinical examination is performed within 24 h after admission and includes physical examination and educated guessing, biochemical analysis and CCUS assessments of heart, lungs, inferior vena cava (IVC) and kidney. This evaluation is repeated at days 3 and 5 after admission. CCUS images are validated by an independent expert, and all data is registered in an online secured database. Follow-up at 90 days includes registration of complications and survival status according to patient's medical charts and the municipal person registry. The primary focus of SICS-II is the association between venous congestion and organ dysfunction. The purpose of publishing this protocol is to provide details on the structure and methods of this ongoing prospective observational cohort study allowing answering multiple research questions. The design of the data collection of combined clinical examination and CCUS assessments in critically ill patients are explicated. The SICS-II is open for other centers to participate and is open for other research questions that can be answered with our data.

Background Prognostic assessments of the mortality of critically ill patients are frequently performed in daily clinical practice and provide prognostic guidance in treatment decisions. In contrast to several sophisticated tools, prognostic estimations made by healthcare providers are always available and accessible, are performed daily, and might have an additive value to guide clinical decision-making. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of students’, nurses’, and physicians’ estimations and the association of their combined estimations with in-hospital mortality and 6-month follow-up. Methods The Simple Observational Critical Care Studies is a prospective observational single-center study in a tertiary teaching hospital in the Netherlands. All patients acutely admitted to the intensive care unit were included. Within 3 h of admission to the intensive care unit, a medical or nursing student, a nurse, and a physician independently predicted in-hospital and 6-month mortality. Logistic regression was used to assess the associations between predictions and the actual outcome; the area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) was calculated to estimate the discriminative accuracy of the students, nurses, and physicians. Results In 827 out of 1,010 patients, in-hospital mortality rates were predicted to be 11%, 15%, and 17% by medical students, nurses, and physicians, respectively. The estimations of students, nurses, and physicians were all associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 5.8, 95% CI [3.7, 9.2], OR 4.7, 95% CI [3.0, 7.3], and OR 7.7 95% CI [4.7, 12.8], respectively). Discriminative accuracy was moderate for all students, nurses, and physicians (between 0.58 and 0.68). When more estimations were of non-survival, the odds of non-survival increased (OR 2.4 95% CI [1.9, 3.1]) per additional estimate, AUROC 0.70 (0.65, 0.76). For 6-month mortality predictions, similar results were observed. Conclusions Based on the initial examination, students, nurses, and physicians can only moderately predict in-hospital and 6-month mortality in critically ill patients. Combined estimations led to more accurate predictions and may serve as an example of the benefit of multidisciplinary clinical care and future research efforts.