Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38752097›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Teaching Ultrasound-Guided Venous Cannulation to Newly Qualified Doctors.

Joseph J Gleeson, Hayley Boal, Thomas Sharp, Rebecca Morris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Joseph J GleesonMedical Education and Simulation, The Mid Yorkshire Teaching NHS Trust, Wakefield, GBR.
Hayley BoalMedical Education and Simulation, The Mid Yorkshire Teaching NHS Trust, Wakefield, GBR.
Thomas SharpMedical Education and Simulation, The Mid Yorkshire Teaching NHS Trust, Wakefield, GBR.
Rebecca MorrisMedical Education and Simulation, The Mid Yorkshire Teaching NHS Trust, Wakefield, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Venous cannulation is an essential task that allows the intravenous administration of fluids and medications. In the United Kingdom, this task is often performed by newly qualified Foundation Year 1 (FY1) doctors; however, difficulties are commonly encountered. The usage of ultrasound increases the chance of successful cannulation, provided the operator has been trained. Some medical schools now include ultrasound in their undergraduate curricula, though this is far from universal. Methods Forty-eight FY1s received a one-hour teaching session on ultrasound-guided venous cannulation, delivered by near-peer Education Fellows. FY1s completed questionnaires immediately after the teaching session, and a follow-up questionnaire three months later. Findings 44.44% of FY1s felt "fairly" or "very" confident in ultrasound-guided venous cannulation at follow-up, compared to 6.66% before the session. Sixty-three attempts were made in the month before the follow-up survey, compared to six in the month prior to the teaching session. The success rate at follow-up was 60% (38/63), up from 50% (3/6) prior to the session. One third fewer cannulas were escalated to senior doctors (72 vs 48), although there was little change in escalations to anesthetists, from 15 vs 18. FY1s identified the lack of ultrasound machines on the wards as a barrier to using ultrasound-guided venous cannulation more often. Conclusion A short, near-peer teaching session can improve FY1s' confidence, usage, and success rates in ultrasound-guided venous cannulation.

Indexed as

foundation year 1intravenous cannulationnear peer teachingnhs englandpost grad medical educationpractical skillsultrasound-guided

Identifiers

PMID38752097
PMCPMC11094656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.