Practitioners' views on community implementation of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in the UK: a qualitative interview study.
Community practice
Facilitators
Point of care ultrasound
Prehospital care
Primary care
Ultrasound practitioners
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Jan 2023
25 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
01
07
2022
accepted:
16
01
2023
entrez:
25
1
2023
pubmed:
26
1
2023
medline:
28
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Implementing Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in community practice could help to decide upon and prioritise initial treatment, procedures and appropriate specialist referral or conveyance to hospital. A recent literature review suggests that image quality, portability and cost of ultrasound devices are all improving with widening indications for community POCUS, but evidence about community POCUS use is needed in the UK. We aimed to explore views of clinical practitioners, actively using ultrasound, on their experiences of using POCUS and potential facilitators and barriers to its wider implementation in community settings in the UK. We conducted a qualitative interview study with practitioners from community and secondary care settings actively using POCUS in practice. A convenience sample of eligible participants from different clinical specialties and settings was recruited using social media adverts, through websites of relevant research groups and snowball sampling. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted online using Microsoft Teams. These were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using a Framework approach supported by NVivo 12. We interviewed 16 practitioners aged between 40 and 62 years from different professional backgrounds, including paramedics, emergency physicians, general practitioners, and allied health professionals. Participants identified key considerations and facilitators for wider implementation of POCUS in community settings in the UK: resource requirements for deployment and support of working devices; sufficient time and a skilled workforce; attention to training, education and support needs; ensuring proper governance, guidelines and quality assurance; workforce considerations; enabling ease of use in assisting decision making with consideration of unintended consequences; and more robust evidence to support perceptions of improved patient outcomes and experience. POCUS could be useful for improving patient journey and health outcomes in community care, but this requires further research to evaluate outcomes. The facilitators identified could help make community POCUS a reality.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Implementing Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in community practice could help to decide upon and prioritise initial treatment, procedures and appropriate specialist referral or conveyance to hospital. A recent literature review suggests that image quality, portability and cost of ultrasound devices are all improving with widening indications for community POCUS, but evidence about community POCUS use is needed in the UK. We aimed to explore views of clinical practitioners, actively using ultrasound, on their experiences of using POCUS and potential facilitators and barriers to its wider implementation in community settings in the UK.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a qualitative interview study with practitioners from community and secondary care settings actively using POCUS in practice. A convenience sample of eligible participants from different clinical specialties and settings was recruited using social media adverts, through websites of relevant research groups and snowball sampling. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted online using Microsoft Teams. These were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using a Framework approach supported by NVivo 12.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We interviewed 16 practitioners aged between 40 and 62 years from different professional backgrounds, including paramedics, emergency physicians, general practitioners, and allied health professionals. Participants identified key considerations and facilitators for wider implementation of POCUS in community settings in the UK: resource requirements for deployment and support of working devices; sufficient time and a skilled workforce; attention to training, education and support needs; ensuring proper governance, guidelines and quality assurance; workforce considerations; enabling ease of use in assisting decision making with consideration of unintended consequences; and more robust evidence to support perceptions of improved patient outcomes and experience.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
POCUS could be useful for improving patient journey and health outcomes in community care, but this requires further research to evaluate outcomes. The facilitators identified could help make community POCUS a reality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36698100
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09069-4
pii: 10.1186/s12913-023-09069-4
pmc: PMC9876652
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
84Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Injury. 2015 Nov;46(11):2093-102
pubmed: 26264879
West J Emerg Med. 2018 Jul;19(4):649-653
pubmed: 30013699
Can Respir J. 2014 November/December;21(6):341-345
pubmed: 25255460
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2020 Sep 17;22(11):149
pubmed: 32944835
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2002 Jan;15(1):80-5
pubmed: 11781559
Lancet Respir Med. 2014 Aug;2(8):638-46
pubmed: 24998674
Eur J Emerg Med. 2010 Oct;17(5):249-53
pubmed: 20124905
Ultrasound J. 2019 Nov 19;11(1):31
pubmed: 31749019
BMJ Open. 2020 Sep 17;10(9):e037664
pubmed: 32948563
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020 Nov;34(11):3139-3145
pubmed: 32736998
Intensive Care Med. 2012 Apr;38(4):577-91
pubmed: 22392031
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013 Jun;26(6):567-81
pubmed: 23711341
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
N Z Med J. 2017 Jan 27;130(1449):46-51
pubmed: 28178729
Ultrasound Q. 2014 Mar;30(1):13-9
pubmed: 24901774
Fam Med. 2020 Jun;52(7):505-511
pubmed: 32640473
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2017 Jan;43(1):49-58
pubmed: 27472989
BMC Geriatr. 2021 Nov 15;21(1):643
pubmed: 34781881
Ann Fam Med. 2019 Jan;17(1):61-69
pubmed: 30670398
Crit Ultrasound J. 2018 Aug 8;10(1):17
pubmed: 30088160
J Adv Nurs. 2006 Jan;53(1):91-100; discussion 101-3
pubmed: 16422698
J Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2017 Sep;25(3):75-83
pubmed: 29093769
Clin Med (Lond). 2018 Jun;18(3):219-224
pubmed: 29858431
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
CJEM. 2015 Mar;17(2):161-70
pubmed: 26052968
Qual Health Res. 2017 Mar;27(4):591-608
pubmed: 27670770
Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Dec;91(12):1811-1827
pubmed: 27825617
Resuscitation. 2014 Jan;85(1):21-30
pubmed: 24056394
N Engl J Med. 2021 Oct 21;385(17):1593-1602
pubmed: 34670045
Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629
pubmed: 15595944
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Nov 01;19(11):e367
pubmed: 29092808
J Fam Pract. 2016 Aug;65(8):517-23
pubmed: 27660835