A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Quality assessment of point-of-care ultrasound reports for patients at the emergency department treated by internists. | LitMetric

Quality assessment of point-of-care ultrasound reports for patients at the emergency department treated by internists.

Ultrasound J

Department Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9700 RB, The Netherlands.

Published: April 2022

Background: POCUS (point-of-care ultrasound) is an important diagnostic tool for several medical specialties. To provide safe patient care, the quality of this exam should be as high as possible. This includes solid documentation with a written report and the availability of images for review. However, international guidelines or publications about this quality assessment and its application in clinical practice are scarce.

Methods: We designed a criteria-checklist to evaluate the quality of POCUS examinations. This checklist was made based on international guidelines and protocols and was validated by a Dutch expert group using the nominal group technique (NGT). All POCUS exams in general internal medicine patients documented between August 2019 and November 2020 in our ED were evaluated using this checklist.

Results: A total of 169 exams were included. In general, the compliance for most important criteria was high, but not optimal. A clinical question or indication for the POCUS exam was stated in 75.7% of cases. The completeness of all standard views differed per indication, but was lower when more than one standard view was required. Labels were provided in 83.5% of the saved images, while 90.8% of all examinations showed a written conclusion.

Conclusions: Our research showed that the overall quality of documentation varies with regard to several important criteria. Suboptimal compliance of documentation may have adverse effects on patient safety. We have developed a checklist which can be used to improve POCUS documentation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9023621PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13089-022-00267-5DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

quality assessment
8
point-of-care ultrasound
8
international guidelines
8
quality
5
pocus
5
assessment point-of-care
4
ultrasound reports
4
reports patients
4
patients emergency
4
emergency department
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!