ArticleBMJ open quality2020
Improving the documentation quality of point-of-care ultrasound scans in the emergency department.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Point-of-care echocardiography training pathways: a global perspective and the need for standardisation.Open heart · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in ultrasound: divergent pathways, shared challenges.BJR artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Seeing Ghosts: A Quality Improvement Intervention to Decrease Phantom Scanning Through Increased Image Archiving of POCUS by Internal Medicine Residents.POCUS journal · 2025Article
- Implementation of a point-of-care ultrasound archiving system and governance framework in a UK physician-paramedic staffed helicopter emergency medical service.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Effect of Departmental and Physician-Selected Interventions on Point-of-Care Ultrasound Documentation Completion.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
- Quality assessment of point-of-care ultrasound reports for patients at the emergency department treated by internists.The ultrasound journal · 2022Article
- Implementing a quality framework for storing emergency department point-of-care ultrasound examinations on a picture archiving and communication system.Ultrasound (Leeds, England) · 2021Article
- Article
- Examining the Durability of an Inexpensive Intervention for Improving Point-of-care Ultrasound Documentation Rates.Journal of medical ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A point-of-care ultrasound scan (POCUS) is a core element of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) specialty training curriculum. However, POCUS documentation quality can be poor, especially in the time-pressured environment of the emergency department (ED). A survey of 10 junior ED clinicians at the Princess Royal University Hospital (PRUH) found that total POCUS documentation was as low as 38% in some examinations.This quality improvement project aimed to increase the coverage and quality of POCUS documentation in the ED. This was done by using a plan-do-study-act (PDSA) regime to improve the quality of POCUS documentation from the original baseline to 80%. There were three discreet PDSA cycles and the interventions included improving education and training about POCUS documentation and the introduction of an original proforma, which incorporated six minimum requirements for POCUS documentation as per the joint RCEM and Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) guidelines for POCUS documentation (patient details, indications, findings, conclusions, signature and date).The project team audited the quality of all documented scans in the resuscitation department of the PRUH against the RCEM/RCR guidelines at baseline and following three discrete PDSA cycles. This was done over an 8-week period, spanning 696 attendances to the resuscitation area of the ED and 42 documented POCUS examinations.Quality recording of the six RCEM/RCR elements of POCUS documentation was poor at baseline but improved following three successful PDSA cycles. There was a demonstrated improvement in five of six documentation elements: patient details on POCUS documentation increased from 53.3% to the 66.7%, indication from 60.0% to 66.7%, conclusion from 13.0% to 83.0%, signature from 86.7% to 100.0% and date from 46.7% to 66.7%.These results suggest that the introduction of a proforma and a vigorous education strategy are effective ways to improve the quality of documentation of ED POCUS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.