Evaluating a Muscle Ultrasound Education Program: Theoretical Knowledge, Hands-on Skills, Reliability, and Satisfaction of Critical Care Physiotherapists

Felipe González-Seguel; Juan José Pinto-Concha; Francisco Ríos-Castro; Alexis Silva-Gutiérrez; Agustín Camus-Molina; Kirby P Mayer; Selina M Parry

doi:10.1016/j.arrct.2021.100142

Evaluating a Muscle Ultrasound Education Program: Theoretical Knowledge, Hands-on Skills, Reliability, and Satisfaction of Critical Care Physiotherapists

Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2021 Jul 13;3(3):100142. doi: 10.1016/j.arrct.2021.100142. eCollection 2021 Sep.

Authors

Felipe González-Seguel¹, Juan José Pinto-Concha², Francisco Ríos-Castro¹, Alexis Silva-Gutiérrez³, Agustín Camus-Molina¹, Kirby P Mayer⁴, Selina M Parry⁵

Affiliations

¹ Servicio de Medicina Física y Rehabilitación and Departamento de Paciente Crítico, Facultad de Medicina, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile.
² Adult Critical Care Center, INDISA Clinic, Santiago, Chile.
³ Adult Critical Care Unit, Hospital Clínico Herminda Martin, Chillán, Chile.
⁴ Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
⁵ Department of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate learning results of critical care physiotherapists participating in a muscle ultrasound (MUS) educational program.

Design: Cross-sectional study.

Setting: A custom-made 20-hour MUS course was performed over a 2-week time period, including knobs familiarization, patient positioning, anatomic landmarks, image acquisition, and limb muscle measurements.

Participants: Nineteen critical care physiotherapists with little to no prior experience in ultrasound (N=19).

Interventions: Not applicable.

Main outcome measures: Theoretical knowledge, hands-on skills acquisition, and satisfaction were assessed. Inter- and intrarater reliability on landmarks, thickness, and pennation angle of quadriceps between participants was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Reliability among instructors measured prior to the course was also reported as a reference.

Results: The percentage score (mean±SD) of knowledge questionnaires was 69±11 (pre-course), 89±10 (post-course), and 92±9 (hands-on skills). Course satisfaction scores ranged from 90%-100%. Pooled interrater reliability of participants (median ICC [interquartile range]) was good (0.70 [0.59-0.79]) for thickness, moderate (0.47 [0.46-0.92]) for landmarks, and absent (0.00 [0.00-0.05]) for pennation angle and the intrarater reliability was good (0.76 [0.51-0.91]) for thickness and weak (0.35 [0.29-0.52]) for pennation angle. Interrater ICC values for instructors were excellent (0.90) for thickness, good (0.67) for landmarks, and moderate (0.41) for pennation angle and intrarater ICC values were excellent (0.94) for thickness and good (0.75) for pennation angle.

Conclusions: Although our sample was quite small and homogeneous, increased theoretical knowledge, high hands-on performance acquisition, and good satisfaction of physiotherapists were observed. Reliability was moderate to excellent for thickness and landmarks and absent to weak for pennation angle. Landmarking and pennation angle remain challenges for physiotherapist training in the application of MUS. Further studies are needed to identify variables that could modify reliability during MUS training.

Keywords: CV, coefficient of variation; Critical care; Education; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; ICU, intensive care unit; IQR, interquartile range; Knowledge assessment; MUS, muscle ultrasound; Muscular atrophy; PA, pennation angle; Physiotherapy; QC, quadriceps complex; RF, rectus femoris; Rehabilitation; SEM, standard error of measurement; Ultrasonography; VI, vastus intermedius; VL, vastus lateralis.