Narrative review identifies POCUS curriculum elements for standardization in graduate medical education across disciplines, implying a need for unified training.
Background: Family medicine (FM) and emergency medicine (EM) have Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-mandated point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training. While POCUS has many uses in internal medicine (IM), lack of mandated training has resulted in wide variation and lack of standardization in graduate medical education (GME) curricula. Objective: To perform a narrative review asking the questions: what are the recommended POCUS curriculum elements across FM, EM, and IM, and how can these inform the development of a more standardized curriculum? Methods: This narrative review was conducted in March 2024. Authors searched published materials from the following organizations: Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, American College of Emergency Physicians, College of Family Physicians of Canada, American Academy of Family Physicians, Canadian Society of Internal Medicine, Society of Hospital Medicine, Society of General Internal Medicine, Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine, and American College of Physicians. Only documents endorsed for POCUS training/education were included. Narrative review was chosen due to the small number and large heterogeneity of documents. All documents were reviewed, and common themes were identified by the authors of the study; they were later compared using a large language model, and authors verified by repeat analysis. Results: Nine documents, 2 online courses, and 5 procedural position statements were identified and reviewed. Both authors agreed on the final themes: POCUS uses, basic knowledge and teaching methods for POCUS, image number requirements and competency assessment, and quality control. Conclusions: There is overlap between recommended curricula for POCUS in major organizations. Internal medicine does not have an apparent defined, standardized curriculum for GME.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
NICKOLS et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: