Perception of point‐of‐care ultrasound performed by emergency medicine physicians

• Published in: Journal of clinical ultrasound Vol. 45; no. 7; pp. 408 - 415
• Main Authors: Hansen, Whitney, Mitchell, Carl E., Bhattarai, Bikash, Ayutyanont, Napatkamon, Stowell, Jeffrey R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.09.2017
• Subjects: Academic Medical Centers; Attitude of Health Personnel; Comfort; Comparative analysis; Consultants; Consulting services; Emergency medical care; Emergency medical services; Emergency Medicine; Emergency Service, Hospital - statistics & numerical data; Gynecology; Humans; Medical personnel; Medicine; Obstetrics; Perception; Physicians; Physicians - statistics & numerical data; Point-of-Care Systems - statistics & numerical data; point‐of‐care ultrasound; Referral and Consultation; Surgery; Training; Ultrasonic imaging; Ultrasonography - methods; Ultrasound; ultrasound education; Utilization; emergency medicine; ultrasound education; point-of-care ultrasound; ultrasound
• ISSN: 0091-2751; 1097-0096
• DOI: 10.1002/jcu.22443

ABSTRACT Purpose Point‐of‐care ultrasound (POCUS) is integral to the practice of emergency medicine (EM). Furthermore, EM‐performed POCUS (EM‐POCUS) offers consultants the opportunity to avoid delays in care due to wait times for confirmatory imaging studies. This study is the first to describe the perception of POCUS to consulting services at a single institution where EM‐POCUS is routinely performed. Methods This study was conducted as a survey distributed to residents from consultant specialties (internal medicine [IM], general surgery [GS], and obstetrics and gynecology [OB‐GYN]). Survey questions aimed to describe consultant's confidence and utilization of EM‐POCUS. Responses were evaluated using descriptive and comparative analysis. Results Survey responses were obtained from 27 IM (87.1%), 13 GS (100%), and 21 OB‐GYN (100%) respondents. Among consultant specialties, 47.5% of respondents reported comfort with EM‐POCUS. IM (81.5%) providers were significantly more likely to trust EM‐POCUS as compared with OB‐GYN (28.6%) and GS (7.7%) providers (p < 0.001). Confidence was further limited when consultants were unable to view POCUS images (23.8% for OB‐GYN, 15.4% for GS, 55.6% for IM), but improved with EM provider level of POCUS experience and training (81% for OB‐GYN, 76.9% for GS, 77.8% for IM). Overall, consultant utilization of EM‐POCUS was 68.9%. Conclusions Study respondents demonstrated limited confidence and utilization of EM‐POCUS in this institution. Increased understanding of EM‐POCUS training and expanded image availability may improve consultant utilization. Future studies, performed nationally, should further describe the value of EM‐POCUS to consultant services. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound 45:408–415, 2017