BackgroundFocused bedside ultrasound is rapidly becoming a standard of care to decrease the risks of complications related to invasive procedures. The purpose of this study was to assess whether adding to the curriculum of junior residents an educational intervention combining web-based e-learning and hands-on training would improve the residents’ proficiency in different clinical applications of bedside ultrasound as compared to using the traditional apprenticeship teaching method alone.MethodsJunior residents (n = 39) were provided with two educational interventions (vascular and pleural ultrasound). Each intervention consisted of a combination of web-based e-learning and bedside hands-on training. Senior residents (n = 15) were the traditionally trained group and were not provided with the educational interventions.ResultsAfter the educational intervention, performance of the junior residents on the practical tests was superior to that of the senior residents. This was true for the vascular assessment (94% ± 5% vs. 68% ± 15%, unpaired student t test: p < 0.0001, mean difference: 26 (95% CI: 20 to 31)) and even more significant for the pleural assessment (92% ± 9% vs. 57% ± 25%, unpaired student t test: p < 0.0001, mean difference: 35 (95% CI: 23 to 44)). The junior residents also had a significantly higher success rate in performing ultrasound-guided needle insertion compared to the senior residents for both the transverse (95% vs. 60%, Fisher’s exact test p = 0.0048) and longitudinal views (100% vs. 73%, Fisher’s exact test p = 0.0055).ConclusionsOur study demonstrated that a structured curriculum combining web-based education, hands-on training, and simulation integrated early in the training of the junior residents can lead to better proficiency in performing ultrasound-guided techniques compared to the traditional apprenticeship model.

Knowledge translation articulates how new scientific insights can be implemented efficiently into clinical practice to reap maximal health benefits. Modern information and communication technologies can be effective tools to help in the collection, processing, and targeted distribution of information from which clinicians, researchers, administrators, policy makers in health, and the public can benefit. Effective implementation of knowledge translation through the use of information and communication technologies, or technology-enabled knowledge translation (TEKT), would benefit both the individual health professional and the health system. Successful TEKT in health requires cultivation and acceptance in the following key domains: Perceiving types of knowledge and ways in which clinicians acquire and apply knowledge in practice. Understanding the conceptual and contextual frameworks of information and communication technologies applied to health systems, particularly the push, pull, and exchange communication models. Comprehending essential issues in implementation of information and communication technologies and strategies to take advantage of emerging opportunities and overcome existing barriers. Establishing a common and widely acceptable evaluation framework in order that researchers can compare various methodologies in their rightful contexts in TEKT research and adoption. Achieving harmony and common understanding in these areas will go a long way in fostering a fertile and innovative environment to encourage research and advance understanding in this exciting domain of TEKT.

BackgroundContinuing professional development (CPD) is one of the principal means by which health professionals (i.e. primary care physicians and specialists) maintain, improve, and broaden the knowledge and skills required for optimal patient care and safety. However, the lack of a widely accepted instrument to assess the impact of CPD activities on clinical practice thwarts researchers' comparisons of the effectiveness of CPD activities. Using an integrated model for the study of healthcare professionals' behaviour, our objective is to develop a theory-based, valid, reliable global instrument to assess the impact of accredited CPD activities on clinical practice.MethodsPhase 1: We will analyze the instruments identified in a systematic review of factors influencing health professionals' behaviours using criteria that reflect the literature on measurement development and CPD decision makers' priorities. The outcome of this phase will be an inventory of instruments based on social cognitive theories. Phase 2: Working from this inventory, the most relevant instruments and their related items for assessing the concepts listed in the integrated model will be selected. Through an e-Delphi process, we will verify whether these instruments are acceptable, what aspects need revision, and whether important items are missing and should be added. The outcome of this phase will be a new global instrument integrating the most relevant tools to fit our integrated model of healthcare professionals' behaviour. Phase 3: Two data collections are planned: (1) a test-retest of the new instrument, including item analysis, to assess its reliability and (2) a study using the instrument before and after CPD activities with a randomly selected control group to explore the instrument's mere-measurement effect. Phase 4: We will conduct individual interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders to identify anticipated barriers and enablers for implementing the new instrument in CPD practice. Phase 5: Drawing on the results from the previous phases, we will use consensus-building methods to develop with the decision makers a plan to implement the new instrument.DiscussionThis project proposes to give stakeholders a theory-based global instrument to validly and reliably measure the impacts of CPD activities on clinical practice, thus laying the groundwork for more targeted and effective knowledge-translation interventions in the future.

BackgroundIn Quebec, the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic was managed using a top-down style that left many involved players with critical views and frustrations. We aimed to describe physicians' perceptions - infectious diseases specialists/medical microbiologists (IDMM) and public health/preventive medicine specialists (PHPMS) - in regards to issues encountered with the pandemics management at the physician level and highlight suggested improvements for future healthcare emergencies.MethodsIn April 2010, Quebec IDMM and PHPMS physicians were invited to anonymously complete a web-based learning needs assessment. The survey included both open-ended and multiple-choice questions. Descriptive statistics were used to report on the frequency distribution of multiple choice responses whereas thematic content analysis was used to analyse qualitative data generated from the survey and help understand respondents' experience and perceptions with the pandemics.ResultsOf the 102 respondents, 85.3% reported difficulties or frustrations in their practice during the pandemic. The thematic analysis revealed two core themes describing the problems experienced in the pandemic management: coordination and resource-related difficulties. Coordination issues included communication, clinical practice guidelines, decision-making, roles and responsibilities, epidemiological investigation, and public health expert advisory committees. Resources issues included laboratory resources, patient management, and vaccination process.ConclusionTogether, the quantitative and qualitative data suggest a need for improved coordination, a better definition of roles and responsibilities, increased use of information technologies, merged communications, and transparency in the decisional process. Increased flexibility and less contradiction in clinical practice guidelines from different sources and increased laboratory/clinical capacity were felt critical to the proper management of infectious disease emergencies.

A workshop using the longitudinal case study enables physicians to perceive their daily practice through a continuing education activity in which they experience the processes of reflection in action and reflection on action described by Schön. It also increases awareness of the gap between current practice and experts' recommendations and provides an opportunity to evaluate the means for bridging or closing this gap. It sensitizes the physician to patients' changing needs and prompts the clinician to reflect on the who, what, when, where, and how of learning.