Is Undergraduate Ultrasound Training Valuable? An Ongoing Evaluation of the Opinions of Residents and their Directors

OBJECTIVE: To examine the views of residents and their residency directors on an integrated medical school ultrasound curriculum. METHODS: As part of a larger survey of the medical school’s curriculum, graduates of the... [ view full abstract ]

OBJECTIVE:
To examine the views of residents and their residency directors on an integrated medical school ultrasound curriculum.

METHODS:
As part of a larger survey of the medical school’s curriculum, graduates of the University of South Carolina School of Medicine were queried regarding their experience with an integrated undergraduate ultrasound curriculum at the conclusion of their PGY-1 year. Input from the graduates’ current program directors was also solicited. Findings were compared to survey results from the previous year to assess change over time.

RESULTS:
37 out of 85 graduates (44%) completed the overall survey, 33 (89%) of which completed the ultrasound portion. On a 5-point scale ranging from “poor” to “excellent,” respondents rated the ultrasound curriculum 4.65, with 100% of respondents choosing either “good”(4) or “excellent”(5). Compared to the previous year this was an increase from 4.43 and 91% respectively.
97% of respondents felt the undergraduate ultrasound curriculum was beneficial during their first year of residency and 94% of graduates felt ultrasound should be standard in medical education. Compared to the previous year this was an increase by 2% and 5% respectively.

Only 9% felt their exposure to ultrasound influenced their choice of residency specialty (decreased from 18% the year before). The proportion of respondents who felt having ultrasound training gave them an advantage in the match was unchanged at 34%. However 84% felt it would be an advantage for future graduates (up from 70%). 41% of graduates responded that they viewed a residency program more favorably if it had opportunities for ultrasound use.

While 64% of residency director respondents felt ultrasound would be an important skill for future residents, and 58% felt having undergraduate ultrasound experience was a positive attribute for current applicants and (both down from 70% and 67% respectively), only 29% felt it would be an advantage for future residents in the match (down from 67%).

DISCUSSION:
Medical schools across the country are introducing ultrasound training into their curriculum. Whether this training influences career choices and the residency match is unknown, with no data yet published on the experience of graduates of these programs. Although important differences among opinions exist between specialties, nearly all resident respondents of this survey found their undergraduate ultrasound experience beneficial during their PGY-1 year. When selecting a program, most respondents viewed programs with ultrasound opportunities more favorably and believe undergraduate ultrasound training will be an advantage for future graduates in the match. The discordance from residency directors and the decrease in the percentage of directors with positive opinions regarding the curriculum compared to last year maybe explained by differences in respondent demographics, however, further study is warranted.

CONCLUSIONS:
Undergraduate training in ultrasound is viewed positively by current residents and although it does not appear to influence career choice, may influence program selection. Further study on trends of these opinions and how they influence the residency match process is warranted.