Search

Objective: The implementation of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in general practice varies, but it is unknown what determines this variation. The purpose of this study was to explore (1) the overall proportion of POCUS-users among general practitioners (GPs), (2) the current use of POCUS by GPs, (3) factors related to the implementation of POCUS in general practice and (4) GPs' concerns related to POCUS use in general practice., Design: An online survey was distributed in June 2019., Setting: General practice., Participants: GPs working in office-based primary care clinics in Denmark., Main Outcome Measures: The questionnaire was developed using mixed methods and included questions about participants' characteristics, past POCUS training and experience, capability, opportunity and motivation for using POCUS in the primary care setting. Results were summarised using descriptive statistics. Association between GPs' background characteristics and POCUS use was tested using logistics regression., Results: Responses were analysed from 1216 questionnaires corresponding to 36.4% of all GPs in Denmark. The majority (72.3%) of participants had previous POCUS experience, 14.7% had access to a POCUS device and 11.5% used POCUS. Several factors motivated participants to use POCUS. However, barriers existed such as lack of remuneration and high workload. Additionally, many GPs questioned their ability to scan with sufficient diagnostic accuracy and the impact of POCUS on the consultation. Of non-users, 28.7% believed they would be using POCUS in the future., Conclusion: Although, the majority of GPs had past experience with POCUS and felt motivated to use it, few had implemented POCUS. Several factors influenced the GPs' capability, opportunity and motivation for using POCUS and several concerns were registered by non-users., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To describe how general practitioners (GPs) use point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) and how it influences the diagnostic process and treatment of patients., Design: Prospective observational study using an online questionnaire before and after POCUS., Setting: Office-based general practice., Participants: Twenty GPs consecutively recruited all patients examined with POCUS in 1 month., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: We estimated the use of POCUS through the indication for use, the frequency of use, the time consumption, the extent of modification of the examination and the findings.The influence on the diagnostic process was estimated through change in the tentative diagnoses, change in confidence, the ability to produce ultrasound images and the relationship between confidence and organs scanned or tentative diagnoses.The influence of POCUS on patient treatment was estimated through change in plan for the patient, change in patient's treatment and the relationship between such changes and certain findings., Results: The GPs included 574 patients in the study. POCUS was used in patient consultations with a median frequency of 8.6% (IQR: 4.9-12.6). Many different organs were scanned covering more than 100 different tentative diagnoses. The median time taken to perform POCUS was 5 min (IQR: 3-8). Across applications and GPs, POCUS entailed a change in diagnoses in 49.4% of patients; increased confidence in a diagnosis in 89.2% of patients; a change in the management plan for 50.9% of patients including an absolute reduction in intended referrals to secondary care from 49.2% to 25.6%; and a change in treatment for 26.5% of patients., Conclusions: The clinical utilisation of POCUS was highly variable among the GPs included in this study in terms of the indication for performing POCUS, examined scanning modalities and frequency of use. Overall, using POCUS altered the GPs' diagnostic process and clinical decision-making in nearly three out of four consultations., Trial Registration Number: NCT03375333., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., Prospero Registration Number: Prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017057804)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To identify baseline patient characteristics that are (1) associated with a poor outcome on follow-up regardless of which treatment was provided (prognosis) or (2) associated with a successful outcome to a specific treatment (treatment effect modifiers)., Design: Systematic literature review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines., Data Sources: Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science, Cochrane, SportDiscus, OT Seeker and PsychInfo were searched for prospective cohort studies up to February 2019 without limitation in publication date., Eligibility Criteria: Prospective cohort studies reporting either prognostic factors or treatment effect modifiers on persistent musculoskeletal pain in 0-year-old to 19-year-old children and adolescents. Pain caused by tumours, fractures, infections, systemic and neurological conditions were excluded., Outcome Measures: Our primary outcome was musculoskeletal pain at follow-up and identification of any baseline characteristics that were associated with this outcome (prognostic factors). No secondary outcomes were declared., Method: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and titles. We included prospective cohort studies investigating the prognosis or treatment effect modifiers of 0-year-old to 19-year-old children and adolescents with self-reported musculoskeletal pain. Risk of bias assessment was conducted with the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool., Results: Twenty-six studies yielding a total of 111 unique prognostic factors were included. Female sex and psychological symptoms were the most frequent investigated prognostic factors. Increasing age, generalised pain, longer pain duration and smoking were other identified prognostic factors. No treatment effect modifiers were identified., Conclusion: Several prognostic factors are associated with a poor prognosis in children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain. These prognostic factors may help guide clinical practice and shared decision-making. None of the included studies was conducted within a general practice setting which highlights an area in need of research., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42016041378., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Investigate the prognosis of adolescent knee pain, and evaluate its impact on health, care-seeking and career choices 5 years later., Design: Pre-registered, prospective cohort study., Setting: Population-based cohort initiated in school setting., Participants: From a cohort of 2200 adolescents aged 15-19 years in 2011, 504 reported knee pain on at least a monthly basis, and were followed prospectively in this cohort study, together with 252 controls who did not have knee pain in 2011., Main Outcome Measures: Outcomes included the Pain and Symptoms subscales from the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), pain intensity measured with a Numeric Rating Scale, pain frequency, knee-related and health-related quality of life, sports participation, physical activity level, KOOS subscales: Function and Sport/recreation, quality of sleep, healthcare consultations, treatments received for their knee pain, the use of painkillers and impact on choice of job or career., Results: At follow-up, 358 (71.0%) from the knee pain group and 182 (72.2%) from the control group responded. Of note, 40.5% (95% CI: 35.4% to 45.6%) from the knee pain group reported knee pain 5 years later which was frequent and intense compared with 13.2% (95% CI: 8.2 to 18.1) of the control group. Those from the knee pain group still suffering from knee pain reported poorer physical health (13 points worse on KOOS Function and 30 points worse on KOOS Sport/recreation), stopped or reduced their sports participation because of knee pain (60%), reported worse sleep quality and worse knee-related and general quality of life. In terms of health behaviours, those still with knee pain reported more healthcare consultations. One-third used pain killers regularly, and 15% (95% CI: 12% to 20%) reported that knee pain influenced their choice of job or career., Conclusion: Four out of every 10 adolescents with knee pain still experienced frequent and intense knee pain 5 years later, severe enough to impact health, health behaviours and career choices., Trail Registration Number: NCT02873143., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The primary aim is to identify, summarise and quality assess the available literature on the cost-effectiveness of implementing low back pain guidelines in primary care. The secondary aim is to assess the transferability of the results to determine whether the identified studies can be included in a comparison with a Danish implementation study to establish which strategy procures most value for money., Design: Systematic review., Data Sources: The search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Scopus, CINAHL and EconLit. No restrictions were made concerning language, year of publication or publication type. The bibliographies of the included studies were searched for any studies not captured in the literature search., Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: To be included, a study must be: (1) based on a randomised controlled trial comparing implementation strategies, (2) the guideline must concern treatment of low back pain in primary care and (3) the economic evaluation should contain primary data on cost and cost-effectiveness., Results: The title and abstract were assessed for 308 studies; of these, three studies were found eligible for inclusion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list showed that the 3 studies were of moderate methodological quality while application of Welte's model showed that cost results from two studies could, with adjustments, be transferred to a Danish setting. It was questionable whether the associated effects could be transferred., Conclusions: Despite the resemblance of the implementation strategies, the 3 studies report conflicting results on cost-effectiveness. This review showed that transferring the results from the identified studies is not straightforward and underlines the importance of transparent reporting. Future research should focus on transferability of effects, for example, development of a supplement to Welte's model., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)