Crispian Oates1, Paula Taylor2. 1. Department of Radiology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. 2. Department of Obstetrics, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obstetric ultrasound scans may fail to provide all the information that is needed because of poor visualisation. Two main causes of poor visualisation are addressed. These are poor foetal position and poor quality imaging due to beam distortion by overlying fatty tissue. METHOD: To improve communication with patients attending obstetric scans, a poster and leaflet were designed to explain these causes of inadequate scans. A questionnaire was used to assess the value of the poster. RESULTS: 57/66 (86%) questionnaires were completed. 52 (91%) found the information on the poster was helpful and well explained. For 8 (14%) the information changed their thoughts about the scan. CONCLUSION: Clear communication aids the expectant mothers understanding of why scans may be suboptimal. The way this is recorded in the scan results is discussed.
BACKGROUND: Obstetric ultrasound scans may fail to provide all the information that is needed because of poor visualisation. Two main causes of poor visualisation are addressed. These are poor foetal position and poor quality imaging due to beam distortion by overlying fatty tissue. METHOD: To improve communication with patients attending obstetric scans, a poster and leaflet were designed to explain these causes of inadequate scans. A questionnaire was used to assess the value of the poster. RESULTS: 57/66 (86%) questionnaires were completed. 52 (91%) found the information on the poster was helpful and well explained. For 8 (14%) the information changed their thoughts about the scan. CONCLUSION: Clear communication aids the expectant mothers understanding of why scans may be suboptimal. The way this is recorded in the scan results is discussed.
Authors: F Fuchs; M Houllier; A Voulgaropoulos; J-M Levaillant; C Colmant; J Bouyer; M-V Senat Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: M Uhden; A J Knippel; R Stressig; R Hammer; H Siegmann; S Froehlich; P Kozlowski Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2011-08-29 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: Francesco Padula; Ferdinando Antonio Gulino; Stella Capriglione; Maurizio Giorlandino; Pietro Cignini; Maria Luisa Mastrandrea; Laura D'Emidio; Claudio Giorlandino Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 2.153