ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2026
Co-designed point-of-care ultrasound program development and implementation at a Veterans Affairs emergency department.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective cohort study identifies barriers and facilitators to point-of-care ultrasound use in an academic emergency department.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Impact Evaluation of a Clinical Point-of-care Ultrasound Intervention in an Academic Emergency Department.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Integrating point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) into patient care requires a multifaceted culture change using a multi-pronged approach. A standardized implementation method is lacking for POCUS program sustainability. We developed a standardized training curriculum and clinical POCUS documentation, archival, and image review process at a single Veterans Affairs Emergency Department (ED). We hypothesized that co-designed development and implementation of the multifaceted POCUS intervention would maximize ED provider uptake and sustainability. Using Participatory Action Research (PAR) and adapted Experience-Based Co-design (EBCD) methods, stakeholders collaboratively co-designed our POCUS intervention to optimize implementation. Using the PRODUCES framework, 12 stakeholder participants (co-creators including study researchers, ultrasound faculty, ED leadership, and ED providers (POCUS end-users)) met in four monthly co-design meetings from July to October 2021 to brainstorm, discuss, refine, and finalize the POCUS intervention and implementation plan. Throughout the co-design process, stakeholders reviewed findings from prior meetings, reflected on successes and failures, and held open discussions on refining and finalizing the proposed POCUS educational and clinical program. By involving stakeholders as co-creators throughout the co-design process, we maximized end-user POCUS enthusiasm, program uptake, and sustained use. This simple, streamlined, and generalizable user-centered co-design method serves as a framework for future POCUS implementation and dissemination plans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40278961What 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.