Afrooz Najafzadeh1,2, Nicole Woodrow3, Kerry Thoirs4. 1. Global Diagnostics Australia Peel Health Campus 110 Lakes Road Mandurah Western Australia 6210 Australia. 2. School of Health Medical and Applied Sciences The Central Queensland University Perth campus 110 William Street Perth Western Australia 6000 Australia. 3. Royal Women's Hospital Flemington Parade Parkville Victoria Australia. 4. International Centre for Allied Health Evidence School of Health Sciences University of South Australia GPO 2471 Adelaide South Australia 5000 Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Obstetric sonography is a highly skilled diagnostic medical examination. Pregnant women like to socialise their ultrasound experience with family, introducing distractions for the sonographer. Our objective was to survey ultrasound practitioners to identify concerns regarding interruptions and their opinions about socialisation during the examination. METHODS: An online questionnaire was disseminated to study the views of Australian and New Zealand obstetric sonographers/sonologists. It was informed by a pilot study of possible distractors with quality and safety concerns and operator opinions regarding family bonding. RESULTS: The opinions of 393 obstetric sonographers/sonologists informed our results. Distractors with the most negative aspects included disruptive children (93.3%) and mobile phone conversations (84.3%). Most respondents (62%) believed that a distractor only had to be present for 5 min or less to have an impact. Small children were identified by 87.5% of respondents as safety risks to themselves, to the patient and to sonographers. Sonographers were concerned that distractors caused a loss of concentration, interruption to a systematic scanning approach and increased false negatives in screening, missing important diagnoses. Sonographers strongly agreed that obstetric sonography facilitated maternal-fetal bonding, but only 15% thought that siblings bond with the fetus during the scan. CONCLUSION: Obstetric sonographers in our study are concerned that distractors pose a negative impact on the quality and safety of ultrasound. They also recognise the importance of family bonding. Strategies to bridge the medical and social components of obstetric sonography should be developed to reduce quality and safety threats.
INTRODUCTION: Obstetric sonography is a highly skilled diagnostic medical examination. Pregnant women like to socialise their ultrasound experience with family, introducing distractions for the sonographer. Our objective was to survey ultrasound practitioners to identify concerns regarding interruptions and their opinions about socialisation during the examination. METHODS: An online questionnaire was disseminated to study the views of Australian and New Zealand obstetric sonographers/sonologists. It was informed by a pilot study of possible distractors with quality and safety concerns and operator opinions regarding family bonding. RESULTS: The opinions of 393 obstetric sonographers/sonologists informed our results. Distractors with the most negative aspects included disruptive children (93.3%) and mobile phone conversations (84.3%). Most respondents (62%) believed that a distractor only had to be present for 5 min or less to have an impact. Small children were identified by 87.5% of respondents as safety risks to themselves, to the patient and to sonographers. Sonographers were concerned that distractors caused a loss of concentration, interruption to a systematic scanning approach and increased false negatives in screening, missing important diagnoses. Sonographers strongly agreed that obstetric sonography facilitated maternal-fetal bonding, but only 15% thought that siblings bond with the fetus during the scan. CONCLUSION: Obstetric sonographers in our study are concerned that distractors pose a negative impact on the quality and safety of ultrasound. They also recognise the importance of family bonding. Strategies to bridge the medical and social components of obstetric sonography should be developed to reduce quality and safety threats.
Authors: Juliana J Brixey; David J Robinson; Craig W Johnson; Todd R Johnson; James P Turley; Jiajie Zhang Journal: ANS Adv Nurs Sci Date: 2007 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 1.824
Authors: Andrew Schemmel; Matthew Lee; Taylor Hanley; B Dustin Pooler; Tabassum Kennedy; Aaron Field; Douglas Wiegmann; John-Paul J Yu Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: John W Beasley; Tosha B Wetterneck; Jon Temte; Jamie A Lapin; Paul Smith; A Joy Rivera-Rodriguez; Ben-Tzion Karsh Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2011 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.657