Troels Mengel-Jørgensen1, Martin Bach Jensen1. 1. a Research Unit of General Practice in Aalborg, and Department of Clinical Medicine , Aalborg University , Aalborg , Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Before implementing point-of-care ultrasound in general practice in Denmark, we sought inspiration from other countries/regions. OBJECTIVES: To collect information about the use and organizational aspects of point-of-care ultrasound in general practice in different European countries/regions. METHODS: Fifteen key persons with knowledge about the use of ultrasound in general practice in Austria, Catalonia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greenland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland were included. Participants received a link to a web-based questionnaire. The primary outcome measures were educational aspects regarding the use of point-of-care ultrasound; clinical application and use; financial aspects; and main barriers to using ultrasound in general practice. RESULTS: In eight out of 12 countries/regions there were national societies for the use of ultrasound in general practice. The respondents from three countries/regions reported that the use of ultrasound was integrated into undergraduate medical education. In nine of the countries/regions, there was formalized training for general practitioners, but only three reported this to be part of the specialization to become a general practitioner. In seven out of 12 countries/regions, general practitioners received payment for ultrasound scans. However, the payment and the requirements for reimbursement differed between countries. Lack of time, lack of training, and financial aspects were important common barriers across countries/regions. CONCLUSION: There were significant differences regarding the use and organizational aspects of point-of-care ultrasound in general practice in Europe. Lack of time and training as well as financial aspects were important barriers to the use of point-of-care ultrasound in general practice.[Box: see text].
BACKGROUND: Before implementing point-of-care ultrasound in general practice in Denmark, we sought inspiration from other countries/regions. OBJECTIVES: To collect information about the use and organizational aspects of point-of-care ultrasound in general practice in different European countries/regions. METHODS: Fifteen key persons with knowledge about the use of ultrasound in general practice in Austria, Catalonia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greenland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland were included. Participants received a link to a web-based questionnaire. The primary outcome measures were educational aspects regarding the use of point-of-care ultrasound; clinical application and use; financial aspects; and main barriers to using ultrasound in general practice. RESULTS: In eight out of 12 countries/regions there were national societies for the use of ultrasound in general practice. The respondents from three countries/regions reported that the use of ultrasound was integrated into undergraduate medical education. In nine of the countries/regions, there was formalized training for general practitioners, but only three reported this to be part of the specialization to become a general practitioner. In seven out of 12 countries/regions, general practitioners received payment for ultrasound scans. However, the payment and the requirements for reimbursement differed between countries. Lack of time, lack of training, and financial aspects were important common barriers across countries/regions. CONCLUSION: There were significant differences regarding the use and organizational aspects of point-of-care ultrasound in general practice in Europe. Lack of time and training as well as financial aspects were important barriers to the use of point-of-care ultrasound in general practice.[Box: see text].
Entities:
Keywords:
Ultrasonography; general practice/education; general practice/instrumentation; physicians; primary care
Authors: Erica di Martino; Camilla Aakjær Andersen; Troels Mengel-Jørgensen; Martin Bach Jensen; Stephen Bradley; Richard D Neal Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Camilla Aakjær Andersen; Sinead Holden; Jonathan Vela; Michael Skovdal Rathleff; Martin Bach Jensen Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Camilla Aakjær Andersen; Timothy C Guetterman; Michael D Fetters; John Brodersen; Annette Sofie Davidsen; Ole Graumann; Martin Bach Jensen Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2022 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.707
Authors: Camilla Aakjær Andersen; Martin Bach B Jensen; Berit Skjødeberg Toftegaard; Peter Vedsted; Michael Harris; Örenäs Research Group Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 2.692