Pourya Pouryahya1,2,3, Alastair D McR Meyer1,2,3, Mei Ping Melody Koo3. 1. Emergency Department, Program of Emergency Medicine, Monash Health Casey Hospital Berwick Victoria 3806 Australia. 2. School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health Monash Emergency Research Collaborative Monash University Clayton Victoria Australia. 3. Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences Monash University Clayton Victoria Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: An observational study on the current diagnostic and procedural utility, as well as impact of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in the emergency department (ED). BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been recognised as a useful non-invasive bedside tool in providing valuable information, as well as its utility in procedural guidance for clinicians. However, its current prevalence and utility in ED remain unknown. METHODS: In October 2016, a 31-day prospective observational study was performed in three Monash Health Emergency Departments in Melbourne, Australia. Data regarding patients' presenting complaints, frequency, operators' qualifications and POCUS module were collected and analysed. Factors associated with diagnostic impacts were identified. RESULTS: A total of 390 (2.1%) POCUS examinations were performed among 18,355 presentations in the three Monash Health EDs during the study period. POCUS was performed as a diagnostic tool in 344 (88.2%) and procedural guidance in 46 (11.8%) cases. eFAST/AAA and bedside echocardiography were the two most frequently utilised diagnostic modules. Overall, the majority of diagnostic POCUS cases were indicated for abdominal pain (35.3%), chest pain (14.0%) and trauma mainly traffic accidents (5.8%). Procedural POCUS was most commonly used for vascular access (71.7%), where dyspnoea (21.6%) was the most common presenting complaint. The majority of the cases were performed by FACEMs (Fellows of Australasian College of Emergency Medicine) (66.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite known diagnostic and procedural values, the prevalence of POCUS in ED was found to be lower than what was expected. The prevalence was shown to be proportional to the level of clinical expertise among the operators. Training and utility of POCUS among physicians and trainees should be further advocated and supported.
OBJECTIVE: An observational study on the current diagnostic and procedural utility, as well as impact of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in the emergency department (ED). BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been recognised as a useful non-invasive bedside tool in providing valuable information, as well as its utility in procedural guidance for clinicians. However, its current prevalence and utility in ED remain unknown. METHODS: In October 2016, a 31-day prospective observational study was performed in three Monash Health Emergency Departments in Melbourne, Australia. Data regarding patients' presenting complaints, frequency, operators' qualifications and POCUS module were collected and analysed. Factors associated with diagnostic impacts were identified. RESULTS: A total of 390 (2.1%) POCUS examinations were performed among 18,355 presentations in the three Monash Health EDs during the study period. POCUS was performed as a diagnostic tool in 344 (88.2%) and procedural guidance in 46 (11.8%) cases. eFAST/AAA and bedside echocardiography were the two most frequently utilised diagnostic modules. Overall, the majority of diagnostic POCUS cases were indicated for abdominal pain (35.3%), chest pain (14.0%) and trauma mainly traffic accidents (5.8%). Procedural POCUS was most commonly used for vascular access (71.7%), where dyspnoea (21.6%) was the most common presenting complaint. The majority of the cases were performed by FACEMs (Fellows of Australasian College of Emergency Medicine) (66.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite known diagnostic and procedural values, the prevalence of POCUS in ED was found to be lower than what was expected. The prevalence was shown to be proportional to the level of clinical expertise among the operators. Training and utility of POCUS among physicians and trainees should be further advocated and supported.
Authors: Massimo Lamperti; Andrew R Bodenham; Mauro Pittiruti; Michael Blaivas; John G Augoustides; Mahmoud Elbarbary; Thierry Pirotte; Dimitrios Karakitsos; Jack Ledonne; Stephanie Doniger; Giancarlo Scoppettuolo; David Feller-Kopman; Wolfram Schummer; Roberto Biffi; Eric Desruennes; Lawrence A Melniker; Susan T Verghese Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-05-22 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Sean P Wilson; Jason M Mefford; Shadi Lahham; Shahram Lotfipour; Mohammad Subeh; Gracie Maldonado; Sophia Spann; John C Fox Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2016-12-10 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Carolynne J Cormack; Peter R Coombs; Kate E Guskich; Gabriel E Blecher; Neil Goldie; Ronnie Ptasznik Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Meera Kotagal; Elina Quiroga; Benjamin J Ruffatto; Adeyinka A Adedipe; Brandon H Backlund; Robert Nathan; Anthony Roche; Dana Sajed; Sachita Shah Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Daniel Hind; Neill Calvert; Richard McWilliams; Andrew Davidson; Suzy Paisley; Catherine Beverley; Steven Thomas Journal: BMJ Date: 2003-08-16
Authors: Siju V Abraham; Ronald Jaison Melit; S Vimal Krishnan; Tijo George; Meenhas Oravil Kunhahamed; C K Kassyap; Sanjeev Bhoi; Tej Prakash Sinha Journal: J Med Ultrasound Date: 2022-03-23