The American journal of emergency medicine · 2025
Inter-rater reliability of ultrasound quality assurance review of FAST examinations: A cross-sectional study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dearing Elizabeth, Frasure Sarah E, Howell Kaitlen, Leo Megan M, Lipton Matthew, Gottlieb Michael, Demant Martin, Nelson Bret P, Liu Yiju T, Boniface Keith
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), an integral part of patient care in the Emergency Department, requires a robust Quality Assurance (QA) program for credentialing and providing ongoing feedback to providers. However, there are no set guidelines for QA and the agreement between providers is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of QA for POCUS.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, eight emergency ultrasound faculty members from eight different institutions completed QA on a total of 25 Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) exams. The exams were graded on overall quality of image acquisition as well as accuracy of interpretation (true positive, true negative, false positive, false negative, incomplete, and technically limited study). The studies were assessed as to whether they met minimal criteria for credentialing. The overall agreement in meeting this minimal requirement as well as the quality scores alone were each compared between participants using Fleiss' kappa.
RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability for whether studies met the minimum criteria for credentialing was slight (Fleiss' κ = 0.058; 95 % CI: -0.016 to 0.132). Image quality grading (scores of 1 and 2 versus 3, 4 and 5) also showed slight agreement (κ = 0.199; 95 % CI: 0.125 to 0.275). There was also no correlation between years in clinical practice and QA review.
CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study found there is only slight agreement in QA grading between emergency ultrasound faculty for both overall competency assessment and in image acquisition alone. Developing a tool to standardize QA may improve the inter-rater reliability and create more uniformity for POCUS feedback and credentialing.
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of QA for POCUS.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, eight emergency ultrasound faculty members from eight different institutions completed QA on a total of 25 Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) exams. The exams were graded on overall quality of image acquisition as well as accuracy of interpretation (true positive, true negative, false positive, false negative, incomplete, and technically limited study). The studies were assessed as to whether they met minimal criteria for credentialing. The overall agreement in meeting this minimal requirement as well as the quality scores alone were each compared between participants using Fleiss' kappa.
RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability for whether studies met the minimum criteria for credentialing was slight (Fleiss' κ = 0.058; 95 % CI: -0.016 to 0.132). Image quality grading (scores of 1 and 2 versus 3, 4 and 5) also showed slight agreement (κ = 0.199; 95 % CI: 0.125 to 0.275). There was also no correlation between years in clinical practice and QA review.
CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study found there is only slight agreement in QA grading between emergency ultrasound faculty for both overall competency assessment and in image acquisition alone. Developing a tool to standardize QA may improve the inter-rater reliability and create more uniformity for POCUS feedback and credentialing.