ArticleJournal of medical ultrasound
Evaluation of Adherence to Emergency Department Point-of-Care Ultrasound Documentation and Billing Following Intervention.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning to Identify Point-of-Care Ultrasound and Evaluate Standardized Documentation: Retrospective Operational Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Impact of worklist selection on point-of-care ultrasound workflow - a quality improvement project.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Over the past few years, both the scope and utility of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) have tremendously expanded in the clinical setting. Despite this growth, few studies have evaluated the compliance, documentation, and billing of POCUS in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this study was to evaluate the compliance of billing and documentation of POCUS and determine if a single, individualized e-mail feedback can help improve billing and documentation. Methods: We performed a 6-week prospective review of ED POCUSs performed. Following this review, all emergency physicians were sent an individualized e-mail regarding their ultrasound performance including the total number of ultrasounds, ultrasounds per shift, and breakdown of specific ultrasound types. Following this intervention, we collected data from an additional 6 weeks regarding ultrasound billing performance. Results: A total of 1532 POCUS scans were recorded for data collection. Eight hundred and five scans were enrolled in the preintervention group and 727 scans in the postintervention group. Twelve different types of POCUS scans were recorded. The preintervention group had documented 484/805 scans resulting in a 60.1% (confidence interval [CI] 56.7%-63.5%) documentation ratio. The postintervention group had documented 521/727 resulting in a 71.7% (CI 68.2%-74.9%) documentation ratio. Conclusion: The implementation of timely quality assurance with continuous billing reminders is essential for the maintenance and fiscal sustainability of an emergency medicine ultrasound program. Future studies should further elucidate and quantify the financial impact of modifiable factors within EDs' ultrasound documentation and billing practices.
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.