Secondary Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Critical Care Ultrasound

A Systematic Review of International Training Competencies and Program

Wong, Adrian, MD1; Galarza, Laura, MD2; Duska, Frantisek, MD, PhD3

doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003626
Online Review Article

Objectives: Critical care ultrasonography has become established within ICUs as a diagnostic tool and to guide management strategies and practical procedures. Following an international consensus statement in 2011, various national professional societies and organizations have sought to develop and deliver training program. The aim of this review was to assess the similarities and differences among these postgraduate intensive care/critical care training program.

Data Sources: A systematic review was performed in two steps. First, we searched medical databases and national societies’ websites for documents meeting predefined inclusion criteria. If not found, professionals related to critical care ultrasonography were contacted.

Data Extraction: Data were extracted independently by two authors. Analyses were conducted on general training requirements as well as specific competencies defined in the documents.

Data Synthesis: Eight national program from seven countries were identified from a total of 25 countries; all identified program have defined competencies for core critical care ultrasonography. Although there were common themes across these program, significant variations in training requirements and assessments existed, for example, number of scans required for echocardiography training ranged from 10 to 100. Furthermore, the specifics of each ultrasound module varied between program.

Conclusions: Despite widespread and increasing use of ultrasound in ICUs, the majority of countries lacked a formal training program and clearly defined competencies. Even among the countries where these are available, there remains variability. There is a need to better define the competencies required in core critical care ultrasonography and standardize the assessment process.

1Intensive Care Unit, King’s College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

2Intensive Care Unit, Hospital General Universitari de Castelló, Castelló de la Plana, Spain.

3Intensive Care Unit, Third Faculty Medicine, Charles University Prague, Czech Republic.

The idea for the article was conceived by Drs. Wong and Galarza. Contacting the various national and professional societies was carried out by all three authors. Analysis of the various program was carried out by Drs. Wong and Galarza. All three authors drafted the article and have read and approved the final article.

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s website (

Funding for publication cost supported by unrestricted grant Q37 for Dr. Duska from Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.

Drs. Wong and Duska are members of the Clinical Training Committee. Dr. Galarza is a member of the NEXT Committee. All authors are members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

Ethical approval: This is a narrative review and no ethical approval or consent was required.

Availability of data and material: Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current status.

The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

For information regarding this article, E-mail:

Copyright © by 2019 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.