Background— Sudden deaths in young competitive athletes are highly visible events with substantial impact on the physician and lay communities. However, the magnitude of this public health issue has become a source of controversy. Methods and Results— To estimate the absolute number of sudden deaths in US competitive athletes, we have assembled a large registry over a 27-year period using systematic identification and tracking strategies. A total of 1866 athletes who died suddenly (or survived cardiac arrest), 19±6 years of age, were identified throughout the United States from 1980 to 2006 in 38 diverse sports. Reports were less common during 1980 to 1993 (576 [31%]) than during 1994 to 2006 (1290 [69%], P <0.001) and increased at a rate of 6% per year. Sudden deaths were predominantly due to cardiovascular disease (1049 [56%]), but causes also included blunt trauma that caused structural damage (416 [22%]), commotio cordis (65 [3%]), and heat stroke (46 [2%]). Among the 1049 cardiovascular deaths, the highest number of events in a single year was 76 (2005 and 2006), with an average of 66 deaths per year (range 50 to 76) over the last 6 years; 29% occurred in blacks, 54% in high school students, and 82% with physical exertion during competition/training, whereas only 11% occurred in females (although this increased with time; P =0.023). The most common cardiovascular causes were hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (36%) and congenital coronary artery anomalies (17%). Conclusions— In this national registry, the absolute number of cardiovascular sudden deaths in young US athletes was somewhat higher than previous estimates but relatively low nevertheless, with a rate of <100 per year. These data are relevant to the current debate surrounding preparticipation screening programs with ECGs and also suggest the need for systematic and mandatory reporting of athlete sudden deaths to a national registry.

Many hospitalists incorporate point‐of‐care ultrasound (POCUS) into their daily practice to answer specific diagnostic questions or to guide performance of invasive bedside procedures. However, standards for hospitalists in POCUS training and assessment are not yet established. Most internal medicine residency training programs, the major pipeline for incoming hospitalists, have only recently begun to incorporate POCUS in their curricula. The purpose of this document is to inform a broad audience on what POCUS is and how hospitalists are using it. This document is intended to provide guidance for the hospitalists who use POCUS and administrators who oversee its use. We discuss POCUS 1) applications, 2) training, 3) assessments, and 4) program management. Practicing hospitalists must continue to collaborate with their local credentialing bodies to outline requirements for POCUS use. Hospitalists should be integrally involved in decision‐making processes surrounding POCUS program management.

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to provide expert consensus recommendations to establish a global ultrasound curriculum for undergraduate medical students. Methods: 64 multi-disciplinary ultrasound experts from 16 countries, 50 multi-disciplinary ultrasound consultants, and 21 medical students and residents contributed to these recommendations. A modified Delphi consensus method was used that included a systematic literature search, evaluation of the quality of literature by the GRADE system, and the RAND appropriateness method for panel judgment and consensus decisions. The process included four in-person international discussion sessions and two rounds of online voting. Results: A total of 332 consensus conference statements in four curricular domains were considered: (1) curricular scope (4 statements), (2) curricular rationale (10 statements), (3) curricular characteristics (14 statements), and (4) curricular content (304 statements). Of these 332 statements, 145 were recommended, 126 were strongly recommended, and 61 were not recommended. Important aspects of an undergraduate ultrasound curriculum identified include curricular integration across the basic and clinical sciences and a competency and entrustable professional activity-based model. The curriculum should form the foundation of a life-long continuum of ultrasound education that prepares students for advanced training and patient care. In addition, the curriculum should complement and support the medical school curriculum as a whole with enhanced understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathophysiological processes and clinical practice without displacing other important undergraduate learning. The content of the curriculum should be appropriate for the medical student level of training, evidence and expert opinion based, and include ongoing collaborative research and development to ensure optimum educational value and patient care. Conclusions: The international consensus conference has provided the first comprehensive document of recommendations for a basic ultrasound curriculum. The document reflects the opinion of a diverse and representative group of international expert ultrasound practitioners, educators, and learners. These recommendations can standardize undergraduate medical student ultrasound education while serving as a basis for additional research in medical education and the application of ultrasound in clinical practice.