Point-of-care ultrasonography: Downstream utilization of and diagnostic (dis)agreements with additional cross-sectional imaging
- PMID: 35561645
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110344
Point-of-care ultrasonography: Downstream utilization of and diagnostic (dis)agreements with additional cross-sectional imaging
Abstract
Objectives: Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS), defined as ultrasonography (US) performed and interpreted by the clinician, is increasingly performed. This study aimed to determine the frequency of and reasons why clinicians of the emergency department request cross-sectional imaging after POCUS and how often radiologists experience diagnostic (dis)agreements.
Methods: This retrospective study included a consecutive series of 503 patients who underwent POCUS at the emergency department of a tertiary care center.
Results: Downstream cross-sectional imaging was performed in 77 (15.3%) of 503 POCUS examinations. Reasons for additional cross-sectional imaging were, in order of decreasing frequency: suspicion of pathology that was not assessed with POCUS in 46 cases (59.7%), confirmation of conclusive POCUS findings in 21 cases (27.3%), inconclusive POCUS (i.e. insufficient visualization of the structure of interest to make a diagnosis, despite an attempt of the POCUS operator) in 7 cases (9.6%), a combination of inconclusive POCUS and suspicion of pathology that was not assessed with POCUS in 2 cases (2.6%), and clarification of incidental findings on POCUS in 1 case (1.3%). In the 21 cases that underwent additional cross-sectional imaging to confirm POCUS findings, POCUS agreed with additional cross-sectional imaging in 19 (90.5%) and disagreed in 2 (9.5%) cases.
Conclusions: The use of POCUS appears to not cause any considerable downstream overutilization of cross-sectional imaging. In addition, radiologists experience few diagnostic disagreements when asked to perform second opinion cross-sectional imaging. Future studies with more homogeneous datasets in terms of POCUS operators are required to confirm our results.
Keywords: Diagnostic Errors; Emergency Medicine; Radiology; Ultrasonography; Workload.
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Diagnostic value of point-of-care ultrasound in deep vein thrombosis in the emergency department.J Clin Ultrasound. 2020 Nov;48(9):527-531. doi: 10.1002/jcu.22892. Epub 2020 Jul 9. J Clin Ultrasound. 2020. PMID: 32643227
-
Accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound by pediatric emergency physicians for testicular torsion.J Pediatr Urol. 2019 Dec;15(6):608.e1-608.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.07.003. Epub 2019 Jul 12. J Pediatr Urol. 2019. PMID: 31455581
-
Reliability of Neck Mass Point-of-Care Ultrasound by Pediatric Emergency Physicians.J Ultrasound Med. 2019 Nov;38(11):2893-2900. doi: 10.1002/jum.14993. Epub 2019 Apr 1. J Ultrasound Med. 2019. PMID: 30937939
-
Point of care ultrasonography from the emergency department to the internal medicine ward: current trends and perspectives.Intern Emerg Med. 2020 Apr;15(3):395-408. doi: 10.1007/s11739-020-02284-5. Epub 2020 Feb 7. Intern Emerg Med. 2020. PMID: 32034674 Review.
-
Ultrasound for airway management: An evidence-based review for the emergency clinician.Am J Emerg Med. 2020 May;38(5):1007-1013. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.12.019. Epub 2019 Dec 11. Am J Emerg Med. 2020. PMID: 31843325 Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources