Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Primary Care
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Ultrasound | Research

Patients’ experiences of the use of point-of-care ultrasound in general practice – a cross-sectional study

Authors: Camilla Aakjær Andersen, John Brodersen, Torsten Rahbek Rudbæk, Martin Bach Jensen

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The use of point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) performed by general practitioners (GPs) in primary care settings is increasing. Previous studies have focused on GP-reported outcomes and little is known about patients’ perspectives on the use of POCUS technology within the general practice consultation. The purpose of this study was to examine patients’ experiences with POCUS in general practice within the areas where GPs have indicated that POCUS affected aspects of the consultation.

Methods

A questionnaire was developed using a mixed methods sequential design. Analytical themes from interviews with GPs were converted into items in a questionnaire by the research team. The questionnaire was then further developed in several rounds of pilot tests involving both patients and GPs. The final questionnaire was used in a cohort study conducted in 18 Danish office-based general practice clinics from January 2018 to August 2018. All patients examined with POCUS were asked to complete the questionnaire on tablets immediately after their consultation.

Results

Out of 691 patients examined, 564 (81.6%) questionnaires were available for analysis. The patients reported that they were well informed about the purpose (98%) and the results (97%) of the POCUS examination; however, 29% reported that they were not informed about the difference between POCUS and an imaging-specialist’s ultrasound examination. Almost all patients (99%) reported that POCUS was integrated naturally into the consultation, and 45% reported that POCUS improved the doctor-patient relationship.
The majority of patients felt that they had been more thoroughly examined (92%) and taken more seriously (58%) when POCUS was part of the consultation. They felt POCUS gave them a better understanding of their health problem (82%), made them feel more secure (86%) and increased their trust in the physician’s assessment (65%). Moreover, the patients reported that POCUS use improved the level of service (95%) they experienced and the quality of care (94%) in general practice.

Conclusion

We found that an examination including POCUS in general practice was a positive experience overall for the majority of patients. Future research should further explore reasons for patient confidence in POCUS and whether or not the reassuring value of POCUS is valid.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03416608
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Kebede S. Ask patients “What matters to you?” rather than “What’s the matter?” BMJ. 2016;354:i4045.CrossRef
2.
3.
4.
Andersen CA, Jensen MBB, Toftegaard BS, Vedsted P, Harris M, Group ÖR. Primary care physicians’ access to in-house ultrasound examinations across Europe: a questionnaire study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(9):e030958.CrossRef
5.
Bornemann P, Jayasekera N, Bergman K, et al. Point-of-care ultrasound: Coming soon to primary care? J Fam Pract. 2018;67(2):70–80.
6.
Myklestul HC, Skonnord T, Brekke M. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in Norwegian general practice. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2020 Apr;21:1–7.
7.
Via G, Hussain A, Wells M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations for focused cardiac ultrasound. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014;27(7):683.e1-683.e33.CrossRef
8.
Volpicelli G, Elbarbary M, Blaivas M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(4):577–91.CrossRef
9.
Olgers TJ, Azizi N, Blans MJ, et al. Point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) for the internist in acute medicine: a uniform curriculum. Neth J Med. 2019;77(5):168–76.PubMed
10.
11.
Guyatt G, et al. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2015.
12.
Andersen CA, Holden S, Vela J, et al. Point-of-care ultrasound in general practice: A systematic review. Ann Fam Med. 2019;17:61–9.CrossRef
13.
Glaso M, Medias IB, Straand J. Diagnostic ultrasound in general practice. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2007;127(15):1924–7.PubMed
14.
Rosenthal TC, Siepel T, Zubler J, et al. The use of ultrasonography to scan the abdomen of patients presenting for routine physical examinations. J Fam Pract. 1994;38(4):380–5.PubMed
15.
Pertierra-Galindo N, Salvo-Donangelo L, Salcedo-Joven MI, Roman-Crespo B, Torres F. Study of patient satisfaction when performing an ultrasound in primary care. SEMERGEN. 2019;45(4):239–50.CrossRef
16.
Wordsworth S, Scott A. Ultrasound scanning by general practitioners: Is it worthwhile? J Public Health Med. 2002;24(2):88–94.CrossRef
17.
Eggebo TM, Sorvang S, Dalaker K. Ultrasonic diagnosis of the upper abdomen performed in general practice. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1990;110(9):1096–8.PubMed
18.
Lindelius A, Törngren S, Nilsson L, et al. Randomized clinical trial of bedside ultrasound among patients with abdominal pain in the emergency department: Impact on patient satisfaction and health care consumption. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2009;17:60.CrossRef
19.
Howard ZD, Noble VE, Marill KA, Sajad D, Rodrigues M, Bertyzzi B, LIteplo AS. Bedside ultrasound maximizes patient satisfaction. J Emerg Med. 2014;46(1):46–53.CrossRef
20.
21.
Williams S, Weinman J, Dale J, Newman S. Patient expectations: What do primary care patients want from the GP and how far does the meeting expectations affect patient satisfaction? Fam Prac. 1995;12(2):193–201.CrossRef
22.
23.
Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013;48:2134–56.CrossRef
24.
25.
Pedersen KM, Andersen JS, Søndergaard J. General practice and primary health care in Denmark. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25(suppl 1):S34–8.CrossRef
26.
27.
Laurence CO, Gialamas A, Bubner T, Yelland L, Willson L, Ryan P, Beilby J, Point-of-care Testing in General Practice Trial Management Group. Patient satisfaction with point-of-care testing in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60(572):e98–104. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3399/​bjgp10X483508.
28.
Lauridsen GB, Sørensen MS, Hansen MP, Rathe JØ, Jarbøl DE. Consultation expectations among patients with respiratory tract infection symptoms. Dan Med J. 2017;64(6):A5385.PubMed
29.
Kenten C, Bowling A, Lambert N, Howe A, Rowe G. A study of patient expectations in a Norfolk general practice. Health Expect. 2010;13:273–84.PubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Weile J, Brix J, Moellekaer AB. Is point-of-care ultrasound disruptive innovation? F0rmulating why POCUS is different from conventional comprehensive ultrasound. Crit Ultrasound J. 2018;10(1):25–33.CrossRef
31.
Moore CL, Copel JA. Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(8):749–57.CrossRef
32.
33.
34.
Roberts J, Griffiths FE, Verran A, Ayre C. Why do women seek ultrasound scans from commercial providers during pregnancy? Sociol Health Illn. 2015;37(4):594–609.CrossRef
35.
van der Weijden T, van Bokhoven MA, Dinant G, et al. Understanding laboratory testing in diagnostic uncertainty: a qualitative study in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52(485):974–80.PubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Jauhar S. The demise of the physical exam. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(6):548–51.CrossRef
37.
Kugler J, Verghese A. The physical exam and other forms of fiction. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(8):756–7.CrossRef
38.
Asscher ECA, Bolt I, Schermer M. Wish-fulfilling medicine in practice: a qualitative study of physician arguments. J Med Ethics. 2012;38:327–31.CrossRef
39.
Giroldi E, Veldhuijzen W, Leijten C, Welter D, van der Weijden T, Muris J, van der Vleuten C. No need to worry: an exploration of general practitioners’ reassuring strategies. BMC Fam Prac. 2014;15:133.CrossRef
40.
Michael-Corsten M, Donner-Banzhoff N. Beyond accuracy: hidden motives in diagnostic testing. Fam Prac. 2018;35(2):222–7.CrossRef
41.
Thomas GM, Roberts J, Griffiths FE. Ultrasound as a technology of reassurance? How pregnant women and health care professionals articulate ultrasound reassurance and its limitations. Sociel Helath Illn. 2017;39(6):893–907.CrossRef
42.
Rolfe A, Burton C. Reassurance after diagnostic testing with a low pretest probability of serious disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(6):407–16.CrossRef
43.
van Ravesteijn H, van Dijk I, Darmon D, et al. The reassuring value of diagnostic tests: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(1):3–8.CrossRef
44.
Austin LC, Reventlow S, Sandøe P, et al. The structure of medical decisions: uncertainty, probability and risk in five common choice situations. Health Risk Soc. 2013;15(1):27–50.CrossRef
45.
Lumbreras B, Donat L, Hernández-Aguado I. Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review. Br J Radiol. 2010;83(988):276–89.CrossRef
46.
Shabanzadeh DM, Sørensen LT, Jørgensen T. A prediction rule for risk stratification of incidentally discovered gallstones: results from a large cohort study. Gastroenterology. 2016;150:156–67.CrossRef
47.
Baltarowich OH, Di Salvo DN, Scoutt LM, et al. National ultrasound curriculum for medical students. Ultrasound Q. 2014;30(1):13–9.CrossRef
48.
Dietrich CF, Hoffmann B, Abramowicz J, et al. Medical student ultrasound education: a WFUMB position paper, part I. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2019;45(2):271–81.CrossRef
49.
50.
Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health and cost. Health Affairs. 2008;27(3):759–69.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patients’ experiences of the use of point-of-care ultrasound in general practice – a cross-sectional study
Authors
Camilla Aakjær Andersen
John Brodersen
Torsten Rahbek Rudbæk
Martin Bach Jensen
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-021-01459-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Primary Care 1/2021 Go to the issue

Research article

Prepared and highly committed despite the risk of COVID-19 infection: a cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians’ concerns and coping strategies in Singapore

Research article

Challenges to implementing electronic trial data collection in primary care: a qualitative study

Research Article

A cross-sectional study reporting concussion exposure, assessment and management in Western Australian general practice

Research Article

Characteristics of a COVID-19 confirmed case series in primary care (COVID-19-PC project): a cross‐sectional study

Research

How concerned significant others experience Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT) – a qualitative study

Research

A qualitative exploration of nursing undergraduates’ perceptions towards scaffolding in the flipped classroom of the Fundamental Nursing Practice Course: a qualitative study