Search

PURPOSE Researchers aimed to describe general practitioners' understanding of appropriate ultrasound use, to record actual scanning practices of early adopters in general practice, and to identify differences between attitudes and actual practice via a mixed methods analysis. METHODS This study was part of a larger multistage mixed methods research framework exploring the use of ultrasound in general practice in Denmark. We used an exploratory sequential approach in the data collection with initial qualitative findings from an interview study applied to building a quantitative questionnaire utilized in a cohort study. In addition, we merged the qualitative and quantitative data using joint display analysis to compare and contrast the results from the 2 stages of the study. RESULTS In the interviews, general practitioners described appropriate ultrasound use as point-of-care examinations with a clear purpose and limited to predefined specific conditions within delimited anatomic areas. They stated that general practitioners should receive formalized ultrasound training and be skilled in the examinations they perform. In the cohort study, general practitioners performed ultrasound examinations of anatomic areas with or without a defined clinical suspicion. Some performed ultrasound examinations for which they had no previous training or skills. CONCLUSIONS We found a difference between the ideas about the appropriate uses for ultrasound in general practice and the actual use by early adopters in clinical practice. Our findings suggest a need for evidence-based guidelines to support general practitioners in choosing which examinations to perform and strategies for developing and maintaining scanning competency. Key words: family practice, general practice, primary health care, point-of-care systems, ultrasonography Ann Fam Med 2022;20:211-219. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2795, INTRODUCTION Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) is performed by a frontline clinician and integrated into the examination of the patient. (1) Despite lack of evidence-based guidelines, POCUS use is growing in general [...]

Background: The use of antibiotics is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance and is considered a major threat to global health. In Denmark, approximately 75% of antibiotic prescriptions are issued in general practice, with acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) being one of the most common indications. Adults who present to general practice with symptoms of acute LRTI often suffer from self-limiting viral infections. However, some patients have bacterial community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), a potential life-threatening infection, that requires immediate antibiotic treatment. Importantly, no single symptom or specific point-of-care test can be used to discriminate the various diagnoses, and diagnostic uncertainty often leads to (over)use of antibiotics. At present, general practitioners (GPs) lack tools to better identify those patients who will benefit from antibiotic treatment. The primary aim of the PLUS-FLUS trial is to determine whether adults who present with symptoms of an acute LRTI in general practice and who have FLUS performed in addition to usual care are treated less frequently with antibiotics than those who only receive usual care. Methods: Adults (≥ 18 years) presenting to general practice with acute cough (< 21 days) and at least one other symptom of acute LRTI, where the GP suspects a bacterial CAP, will be invited to participate in this pragmatic randomized controlled trial. All participants will receive usual care. Subsequently, participants will be randomized to either the control group (usual care) or to an additional focused lung ultrasonography performed by the GP (+ FLUS). The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with antibiotics prescribed at the index consultation (day 0). Secondary outcomes include comparisons of the clinical course for participants in groups. Discussion: We will examine whether adults who present with symptoms of acute LRTI in general practice, who have FLUS performed in addition to usual care, have antibiotics prescribed less frequently than those given usual care alone. It is highly important that a possible reduction in antibiotic prescriptions does not compromise patients' recovery or clinical course, which we will assess closely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Researchers aimed to describe general practitioners' understanding of appropriate ultrasound use, to record actual scanning practices of early adopters in general practice, and to identify differences between attitudes and actual practice via a mixed methods analysis.Methods: This study was part of a larger multistage mixed methods research framework exploring the use of ultrasound in general practice in Denmark. We used an exploratory sequential approach in the data collection with initial qualitative findings from an interview study applied to building a quantitative questionnaire utilized in a cohort study. In addition, we merged the qualitative and quantitative data using joint display analysis to compare and contrast the results from the 2 stages of the study.Results: In the interviews, general practitioners described appropriate ultrasound use as point-of-care examinations with a clear purpose and limited to predefined specific conditions within delimited anatomic areas. They stated that general practitioners should receive formalized ultrasound training and be skilled in the examinations they perform. In the cohort study, general practitioners performed ultrasound examinations of anatomic areas with or without a defined clinical suspicion. Some performed ultrasound examinations for which they had no previous training or skills.Conclusions: We found a difference between the ideas about the appropriate uses for ultrasound in general practice and the actual use by early adopters in clinical practice. Our findings suggest a need for evidence-based guidelines to support general practitioners in choosing which examinations to perform and strategies for developing and maintaining scanning competency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To systematically review and synthesize the published literature regarding the education of general practitioners (GPs) and GPs in training (GPTs) in the use of ultrasonography.Design: This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, conducted according to the Cochrane recommendations. We combined studies identified in a previous systematic review with studies from an updated literature search using the same search string. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE via Pubmed, EMBASE via OVID, Cinahl via Ebsco, Web of Science and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials using the words 'ultrasonography' and 'general practice'. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data and assessed the quality of included papers according to the Down and Black quality assessment tool. Disagreements were resolved by involving a third reviewer.Results: Thirty-three papers were included. Ultrasound training was described to include both theoretical and practical training sessions. Theoretical training was achieved through introductory e-learning and/or didactic lectures. Practical training included focussed hands-on training sessions, while some papers described additional longitudinal practical training through proctored scans during clinical work or through self-study practice with continuous feedback on recorded scans.Conclusion: There was a large variation in ultrasound training programs for GPs and GPTs, with an overall emphasis on focussed practical training. Few studies included a longitudinal learning process in the training program. However, diagnostic accuracy seemed to improve with hours of practical training, and studies including continuous feedback on scans conducted during clinical patient encounters showed superior results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) is increasingly used across the medical field. PoCUS is also being implemented in general practice despite a lack of clinical guidelines and training programs for general practitioners (GPs).Objectives: This study aimed to elucidate the employment of PoCUS by Danish GPs following a short training program.Methods: Thirty GPs were enrolled in a short ultrasound training program and taught how to perform 22 selected scanning modalities. In the following 3 months, the GPs registered all performed PoCUS examinations according to the Audit Project Odense method. After 5 months, the GPs were invited to participate in an evaluation seminar, where questionnaires were distributed.Results: During the registration period, 1598 patients were examined with PoCUS. A total of 1948 scanning modalities were registered, including 207 examinations outside the taught curriculum. The majority of the ultrasound examinations were performed within 10 minutes (89%), most were considered to be conclusive (87%) and/or to increase diagnostic certainty (67%), whereas one in four examinations entailed a change in patient management. Most GPs attending the evaluation seminar continued to use PoCUS and found the scanning modalities included in the course curriculum relevant in their daily work.Conclusion: The GPs found several indications for performing PoCUS following the attendance of a 2-day basic training program. The majority of examinations were registered to be conclusive and/or increase diagnostic certainty. However, few GPs used PoCUS on a daily basis and not all examinations were registered to have an impact on patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives We aimed to systematically review the published literature regarding adults with clinical suspicion of pneumonia that compares the accuracy of lung ultrasonography (LUS) performed by non-imaging specialists to other reference standards in diagnosing and evaluating the severity of community-acquired pneumonia. Moreover, we aimed to describe LUS training and the speciality of the physician performing LUS, time spent on the LUS procedure and potential harms to patients. Materials and methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up until May 2019. We included studies that used LUS to diagnose pneumonia, but also confirmed pneumonia by other means. Publications were excluded if LUS was performed by a sonographer or radiologist (imaging specialists) or performed on other indications than suspicion of pneumonia. Two review authors screened and selected articles, extracted data and assessed quality using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Results We included 17 studies. The sensitivity of LUS to diagnose pneumonia ranged from 0.68 to 1.00; however, in 14 studies, sensitivity was ≥0.91. Specificities varied from 0.57 to 1.00. We found no obvious differences between studies with low and high diagnostic accuracy. The non-imaging specialists were emergency physicians, internal medicine physicians, intensivists or ‘speciality not described’. Five studies described LUS training, which varied from a 1-hour course to fully credentialed ultrasound education. In general, the methodological quality of studies was good, though, some studies had a high risk of bias. Conclusion We found significant heterogeneity across studies. In the majority of studies, LUS in the hands of the non-imaging specialists demonstrated high sensitivities and specificities in diagnosing pneumonia. However, due to problems with methodology and heterogeneity there is a need for larger studies with uniform and clearly established criteria for diagnosis and blinding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The overall objective of this study was to examine the differences in ultrasound availability in primary care across Europe. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Primary care. Participants Primary care physicians (PCPs). Primary and secondary outcomes measures The primary aim was to describe the variation in in-house primary care ultrasonography availability across Europe using descriptive statistics. The secondary aim was to explore associations between in-house ultrasonography availability and the characteristics of PCPs and their clinics using a mixed-effects logistic regression model. Results We collected data from 20 European countries. A total of 2086 PCPs participated, varying from 59 to 446 PCPs per country. The median response rate per country was 24.8%. The median (minimum–maximum) percentage of PCPs across Europe with access to in-house abdominal ultrasonography was 15.3% (0.0%–98.1%) and 12.1% (0.0%–30.8%) had access to in-house pelvic ultrasonography with large variations between countries. We found associations between in-house abdominal ultrasonography availability and larger clinics (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.9) and clinics with medical doctors specialised in areas, which traditionally use ultrasonography (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.8). Corresponding associations were found between in-house pelvic ultrasonography availability and larger clinics (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.7) and clinics with medical doctors specialised in areas, which traditionally use ultrasonography (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.8 to 5.1). Additionally, we found a negative association between urban clinics and in-house pelvic ultrasound availability (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.9). Conclusions Across Europe, there is a large variation in PCPs’ access to in-house ultrasonography and organisational aspects of primary care seem to determine this variation. If evidence continues to support ultrasonography as a front-line point-of-care test, implementation strategies for increasing its availability in primary care are needed. Future research should focus on facilitators and barriers that may affect the implementation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Ultrasound examinations are currently being implemented in general practice. This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the training in and use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) by general practitioners.Methods: We followed the Cochrane guidelines for conduct and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for reporting. We searched the databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using the key words ultrasonography and general practice in combination and using thesaurus terms. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies using an established checklist.Results: We included in our review a total of 51 full-text articles. POCUS was applied for a variety of purposes, with the majority of scans focused on abdominal and obstetric indications. The length of training programs varied from 2 to 320 hours. Competence in some types of focused ultrasound scans could be attained with only few hours of training. Focused POCUS scans were reported to have a higher diagnostic accuracy and be associated with less harm than more comprehensive scans or screening scans. The included studies were of a low quality, however, mainly because of issues with design and reporting.Conclusions: POCUS has the potential to be an important tool for the general practitioner and may possibly reduce health care costs. Future research should aim to assess the quality of ultrasound scans in broader groups of general practitioners, further explore how these clinicians should be trained, and evaluate the clinical course of patients who undergo scanning by general practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis (MPGN) and C3 glomerulonephritis (C3 GN) can be secondary to monoclonal gammopathy and multiple myeloma. MPGN Type 1 is caused by activation of the classical pathway by immune complex formation, and C3 GN results from abnormalities in the alternative pathway of complement. In previously reported cases of MPGN and C3 GN secondary to monoclonal gammopathy/multiple myeloma, renal outcome has been poor. Here, we present the first patient, to our knowledge, who showed full renal recovery and normalization of the complement system after chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation.