Guidance markers increase the accuracy of simulated ultrasound-guided vascular access: an observational cohort study in a phantom

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofie Thorn ◽  
Marlene Aagaard Hansen ◽  
Erik Sloth ◽  
Lars Knudsen

Introduction Peripheral ultrasound (US)-guided vascular access is gaining popularity. Though studies have demonstrated that US-guided vascular access has several advantages, the procedure is challenging to even the most experienced operator. The aim of this observational cohort study was to investigate whether adding guidance markers on a US system would increase the accuracy of US-guided needle tip placement compared to no guidance markers. Methods A total of 18 physicians and 12 nurses familiar with US-guided vascular access volunteered to participate. Two identical US systems were used. System A was as manufactured. System B included three guide markers drawn on the transducer and screen. The participants performed six needle insertions in a gelatin phantom with three imbedded targets. First participants used US system A and then US system B. Primary endpoint was horizontal distance between needle tip and target. Secondary endpoint was participant's subjective feeling of advantage of the guidance markers measured on a Likert scale. Results Guidance markers on the US system significantly increased the accuracy of needle placement on all three targets individually (p = 0.00) and on overall placement, (inter-quartile range 3.21 mm vs. 0.49 mm, p = 0.00). In addition, the use of guidance markers eliminated the difference in accuracy between physicians and nurses, respectively. All participants evaluated the guidance markers to be helpful during the needle insertions. Conclusions Adding guidance markers to the US system significantly increased the accuracy of needle placement in the horizontal plane during simulated US-guided vascular access using a phantom.

BMJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. k4859 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gal Koplewitz ◽  
Daniel M Blumenthal ◽  
Nate Gross ◽  
Tanner Hicks ◽  
Anupam B Jena

AbstractObjectivesTo examine patterns of golfing among physicians: the proportion who regularly play golf, differences in golf practices across specialties, the specialties with the best golfers, and differences in golf practices between male and female physicians.DesignObservational study.SettingComprehensive database of US physicians linked to the US Golfing Association amateur golfer database.Participants41 692 US physicians who actively logged their golf rounds in the US Golfing Association database as of 1 August 2018.Main outcome measuresProportion of physicians who play golf, golf performance (measured using golf handicap index), and golf frequency (number of games played in previous six months).ResultsAmong 1 029 088 physicians, 41 692 (4.1%) actively logged golf scores in the US Golfing Association amateur golfer database. Men accounted for 89.5% of physician golfers, and among male physicians overall, 5.5% (37 309/683 297) played golf compared with 1.3% (4383/345 489) among female physicians. Rates of golfing varied substantially across physician specialties. The highest proportions of physician golfers were in orthopedic surgery (8.8%), urology (8.1%), plastic surgery (7.5%), and otolaryngology (7.1%), whereas the lowest proportions were in internal medicine and infectious disease (<3.0%). Physicians in thoracic surgery, vascular surgery, and orthopedic surgery were the best golfers, with about 15% better golf performance than specialists in endocrinology, dermatology, and oncology.ConclusionsGolfing is common among US male physicians, particularly those in the surgical subspecialties. The association between golfing and patient outcomes, costs of care, and physician wellbeing remain unknown.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Al-Tarrah ◽  
Carl Jenkinson ◽  
Martin Hewison ◽  
Naiem Moiemen ◽  
Janet Lord

Diabetes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 131-OR
Author(s):  
VASILEIOS LIAKOPOULOS ◽  
ANN-MARIE SVENSSON ◽  
INGMAR NASLUND ◽  
BJORN ELIASSON

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document