ArticleThe ultrasound journal2024
Medico-legal risks of point-of-care ultrasound: a closed-case analysis of Canadian Medical Protective Association medico-legal cases.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Training Variability and Omission Liability in Emergency Ultrasound-Guided Nerve Blocks.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026Article
- A Nomogram Integrating Inflammatory Biomarkers and Echocardiographic Parameters for Predicting Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Obstruction Risk in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Not Just a Diagnostic Tool: A Qualitative Study Exploring How Patients Experience Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Acute Care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Point-of-care ultrasound in primary care: time for a standardized Italian curriculum?Journal of ultrasound · 2026Article
- When the heart stops: point-of-care ultrasound in perioperative cardiac arrest.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2026Article
- Neonatal point-of-care ultrasound-steps for program development.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Review
- Point-of-care ultrasonography in Turkish primary care: a qualitative exploration of practice and experience.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Point-Of-Care Ultrasound in Emergency Departments in Australia/New Zealand: An Emergency Physician's Perspective.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Roadmap to success: Blueprint for enterprise-wide deployment of a point-of-care ultrasound platform, inclusive of governance, policy, education, credentialing, and quality assurance (Part 2).Journal of clinical imaging science · 2025Article
- Web-based objective and structured assessment of point-of-care lung ultrasound skills in resource-limited settings.BMC medical education · 2024Article
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
backgroundPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has become a core diagnostic tool for many physicians due to its portability, excellent safety profile, and diagnostic utility. Despite its growing use, the potential risks of POCUS use should be considered by providers. We analyzed the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) repository to identify medico-legal cases arising from the use of POCUS.
methodsWe retrospectively searched the CMPA closed-case repository for cases involving diagnostic POCUS between January 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2021. Cases included civil-legal actions, medical regulatory authority (College) cases, and hospital complaints. Patient and physician demographics, outcomes, reason for complaint, and expert-identified contributing factors were analyzed.
resultsFrom 2012 to 2021, there were 58,626 closed medico-legal cases in the CMPA repository with POCUS determined to be a contributing factor for medico-legal action in 15 cases; in all cases the medico-legal outcome was decided against the physicians. The most common reasons for patient complaints were diagnostic error, deficient assessment, and failure to perform a test or intervention. Expert analysis of these cases determined the most common contributing factors for medico-legal action was failure to perform POCUS when indicated (7 cases, 47%); however, medico-legal action also resulted from diagnostic error, incorrect sonographic approach, deficient assessment, inadequate skill, inadequate documentation, or inadequate reporting.
conclusionsAlthough the most common reason associated with the medico-legal action in these cases is failure to perform POCUS when indicated, inappropriate use of POCUS may lead to medico-legal action. Due to limitations in granularity of data, the exact number of civil-legal, College cases, and hospital complaints for each contributing factor is unavailable. To enhance patient care and mitigate risk for providers, POCUS should be carefully integrated with other clinical information, performed by providers with adequate skill, and carefully documented.
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.