scholarly journals Taking the Pulse of POCUS: The State of Point-of-Care Ultrasound at a Pediatric Tertiary Care Hospital

POCUS Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-87
Author(s):  
Peter Gutierrez ◽  
Tal Berkowitz ◽  
Lekha Shah ◽  
Stephanie G. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Training Data ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Future Practice

We aim to quantify and categorize point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) usage by pediatric practitioners and trainees at our tertiary care center, and assess the degree of interest from pediatric residents, fellows, and program leaders for integrating POCUS into their training. Data was collected via online survey, evaluating the current use of POCUS in clinical decision making, desire for further formal training, and opinions on the importance of POCUS to future clinical practice. In total, 14 program directors/assistant program directors (PD/APDs) representing 10 of 15 training programs, 30 of 95 fellows representing 9 of 15 fellowships, and 32 of 82 residents responded. From PD/APDs, only 2 of the programs reported active use POCUS for clinical decision making, but 13 of the fellows and 9 residents reported doing so. In regard to desire for a formal POCUS program, 30.8% of PD/APDs, 43.8% of fellows without current curricula, and 87.5% of residents were interested in participating in such a program. When considering specialty, some non-acute care-based PD/APDs and fellows at our institution felt that POCUS was important to future practice. Pediatric subspecialty PD/APDs and their fellows had divergent outlooks on the importance of POCUS in future practice. Finally, an overwhelming majority of residents at our institution expressed a desire to learn, and half believing it will be important to future practice. Based on the degree of interest, medicolegal considerations, and trajectory of patient care, pediatric residency and fellowship programs should strongly consider integrating POCUS education into their curricula.

Point of Care Ultrasound in Geriatric Patients: Prospective Evaluation of a Portable Handheld Ultrasound Device

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (03) ◽  
pp. 308-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eckhart Fröhlich ◽  
Katharina Beller ◽  
Reinhold Muller ◽  
Maria Herrmann ◽  
Ines Debove ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Geriatric Patients ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Handheld Device ◽  
Ultrasound Device ◽  
Handheld Ultrasound

Abstract Purpose The aim of the current study was to evaluate point of care ultrasound (POCUS) in geriatric patients by echoscopy using a handheld ultrasound device (HHUSD, VScan) at bedside in comparison to a high-end ultrasound system (HEUS) as the gold standard. Materials and Methods Prospective observational study with a total of 112 geriatric patients. The ultrasound examinations were independently performed by two experienced blinded examiners with a portable handheld device and a high-end ultrasound device. The findings were compared with respect to diagnostic findings and therapeutic implications. Results The main indications for the ultrasound examinations were dyspnea (44.6 %), fall (frailty) (24.1 %) and fever (21.4 %). The most frequently found diagnoses were cystic lesions 32.1 % (35/109), hepatic vein congestion 19.3 % (21/109) and ascites 13.6 % (15/110). HHUSD delivered 13 false-negative findings in the abdomen resulting in an “overall sensitivity” of 89.5 %. The respective “overall specificity” was 99.6 % (7 false-positive diagnoses). HHUSD (versus HEUS data) resulted in 13.6 % (17.3 %) diagnostically relevant procedures in the abdomen and 0.9 % (0.9 %) in the thorax. Without HHUSD (HEUS) 95.7 % (100 %) of important pathological findings would have been missed. Conclusion The small HHUSD tool improves clinical decision-making in immobile geriatric patients at the point of care (geriatric ward). In most cases, HHUSD allows sufficiently accurate yes/no diagnoses already at the bedside, thereby clarifying the leading symptoms for early clinical decision-making.

scholarly journals Evaluation of a Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) training course for Regional Anesthesiologists – A Single Institution’s Experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Alex K. Saltzman ◽  
Thuyvan H. Luu ◽  
Nicole Brunetti ◽  
James D. Beckman ◽  
Mary J. Hargett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Regional Anesthesia ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
P Value ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Training Course ◽  
The Impact

Background and Objectives: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in the form of focused cardiac ultrasound (FOCUS) is a powerful clinical tool for anesthesiologists to supplement bedside evaluation and optimize cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the perioperative setting. However, few courses are available to train physicians. At Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), from March of 2013 to May of 2016, nine basic Focused Assessed Transthoracic Echocardiography (FATE) training courses were held. A large percentage of the participants were practicing regional anesthesiologists or trainees in fellowship for regional anesthesia and acute pain. In this study, a survey was used to assess clinical utilization as well as potential barriers to use for regional anesthesiologists. Methods: Following IRB approval, 183 past participants of the basic FATE training course were contacted weekly from November 22nd, 2016, through January 3rd, 2017, via email and sent a maximum 40-item electronic survey hosted on REDCap. Responses were analyzed by a blinded statistician. Results: 92 participants responded (50%), and 65 of the 92 (70.7%) indicated they had regional anesthesiology training or practice regional anesthesia regularly. Of the total number of respondents, 50% (95% CI: 40.3%, 59.8%; P-value = 0.001) have used FOCUS to guide clinical decision making. Of the regional anesthesiologists, 27 (45.8%) have used FOCUS to guide clinical decision making with left ventricular function assessment (40.7%) and hypovolemia (39.0%) being the most common reasons. Regional anesthesiologists utilized FOCUS in the following settings: preoperatively (44.6%), intraoperatively (41.5%), postoperatively (41.5%), and in the Intensive Care Unit (40.0%). Limitations were due to lack of opportunities (52.3%), resources (36.9%), and comfort with performance (30.8%). 84.4% agreed that basic FOCUS training should be a required part of anesthesia residents or fellows’ curriculum. Conclusions: This study is the first formal evaluation of the impact of the implementation of a FOCUS training course on regional anesthesiologists’ current practice. Nearly 50% of regional anesthesiologists used FOCUS to guide clinical decision-making following formal training. The limitations to the use of FOCUS were a lack of relevant opportunities and resources. This evaluation of clinical use following training provides insight into how FOCUS is used by regional anesthesiologists and the limitations to implementation in the perioperative setting.

Point-of-Care Ultrasound Use, Accuracy, and Impact on Clinical Decision Making in Rwanda Hospitals

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1189-1194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia C. Henwood ◽  
David C. Mackenzie ◽  
Andrew S. Liteplo ◽  
Joshua S. Rempell ◽  
Alice F. Murray ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound

scholarly journals Assessment of a laboratory critical risk result notification protocol in a tertiary care hospital and their use in clinical decision making

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 513-521
Author(s):  
Jose A. Delgado Rodríguez ◽  
Maria I. Pastor García ◽  
Cristina Gómez Cobo ◽  
Antonia R. Pons Más ◽  
Isabel Llompart Alabern ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Tertiary Care Hospital ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Risk Result ◽  
The Impact

Introduction: Communication of laboratory critical risk results is essential for patient safety, as it allows early decision making. Our aims were: 1) to retrospectively evaluate the current protocol for telephone notification of critical risk results in terms of rates, efficiency and recipient satisfaction, 2) to assess their use in clinical decision making and 3) to suggest alternative tools for a better assessment of notification protocols. Materials and methods: The biochemical critical risk result notifications reported during 12 months by routine and STAT laboratories in a tertiary care hospital were reviewed. Total number of reports, time for the notification and main magnitudes with critical risk results were calculated. The use of notifications in clinical decision making was assessed by reviewing medical records. Satisfaction with the notification protocol was assessed through an online questionnaire to requesting physicians and nurses. Results: Critical result was yielded by 0.1% of total laboratory tests. Median time for notification was 3.2 min (STAT) and 16.9 min (routine). The magnitudes with a greater number of critical results were glucose and potassium for routine analyses, and troponin, sodium for STAT. Most notifications were not reflected in the medical records. Overall mean satisfaction with the protocol was 4.2/5. Conclusion: The results obtained indicate that the current protocol is appropriate. Nevertheless, there are some limitations that hamper the evaluation of the impact on clinical decision making. Alternatives were proposed for a proper and precise evaluation.

scholarly journals Impact of point-of-care ultrasound on clinical decision-making at an urban emergency department in Tanzania

PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. e0194774 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teri Ann Reynolds ◽  
Stas Amato ◽  
Irene Kulola ◽  
Chuan-Jay Jeffrey Chen ◽  
Juma Mfinanga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Urban Emergency Department
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document