Explore the vast range of titles available.

With some clinical studies indicating that diagnostic ultrasonography can be superior to the physical exam, several U.S. medical schools now offer ultrasound training early in the undergraduate curriculum — though not everyone agrees on the wisdom of that approach. In 1816, the French physician René-Théophile-Hyacinthe Laennec, inspired by children communicating by tapping a pin on one end of a long piece of wood and listening at the other end, rolled a “quire” of paper into a cylinder to listen to the heart of a sick young woman, instead of placing his ear directly on her bare chest. This improvised tool designed to protect a patient's modesty evolved into the wooden instrument that eventually became the modern stethoscope. Nearly 200 years later, the stethoscope is unique among medical devices in that it is used by virtually every type of physician . . .

Objective Despite the growing number of point-of-care (POC) tests available, little research has assessed primary care clinician need for such tests. We therefore aimed to determine which POC tests they actually use or would like to use (if not currently available in their practice). Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting Primary care in Australia, Belgium (Flanders region only), the Netherlands, the UK and the USA. Participants Primary care doctors (general practitioners, family physicians). Main measures We asked respondents to (1) identify conditions for which a POC test could help inform diagnosis, (2) from a list of tests provided: evaluate which POC tests they currently use (and how frequently) and (3) determine which tests (from that same list) they would like to use in the future (and how frequently). Results 2770 primary care clinicians across five countries responded. Respondents in all countries wanted POC tests to help them diagnose acute conditions (infections, acute cardiac disease, pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis), and some chronic conditions (diabetes, anaemia). Based on the list of POC tests provided, the most common tests currently used were: urine pregnancy, urine leucocytes or nitrite and blood glucose. The most commonly reported tests respondents expressed a wish to use in the future were: D-dimer, troponin and chlamydia. The UK and the USA reported a higher actual and desired use for POC tests than Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands. Our limited data suggest (but do not confirm) representativeness. Conclusions Primary care clinicians in all five countries expressed a desire for POC tests to help them diagnose a range of acute and chronic conditions. Rates of current reported use and desired future use were generally high for a small selection of POC tests, but varied across countries. Future research is warranted to explore how specific POC tests might improve primary care.

Leprosy control has seen little innovation and only limited progress in the past decade. However, research on the disease has increased and important innovations are underway. Here, we comment on efforts to develop tools and approaches to detect leprosy and to stop the transmission of Mycobacterium leprae, the causative bacillus of the disease. The tracing and screening of contacts of known patients with leprosy promises to strengthen early diagnosis, while preventive chemotherapy will reduce the risk of contacts developing the disease by 50–60% within 2 years of administration. Until now, diagnosis has been mainly based on the presence of signs and symptoms, but efforts are underway to develop inexpensive, reliable, point-of-care tests to diagnose infection. Development of a leprosy-specific vaccine that boosts long-lasting T-cell responses is also a research objective. As for launching a programme to interrupt transmission, two interlinked tools—epidemiological modelling and the concept of an investment case—are being developed to explore the feasibility and costs of such a programme and its overall effect on individuals and society. We believe that sustained innovation is needed and that only a combination of tools and approaches holds promise to end M leprae transmission.

New medical technology brings the potential of lawsuits related to the usage of that new technology. In recent years the use of point-of-care (POC) ultrasound has increased rapidly in the emergency department (ED). POC ultrasound creates potential legal risk to an emergency physician (EP) either using or not using this tool. The aim of this study was to quantify and characterize reported decisions in lawsuits related to EPs performing POC ultrasound. We conducted a retrospective review of all United States reported state and federal cases in the Westlaw database. We assessed the full text of reported cases between January 2008 and December 2012. EPs with emergency ultrasound fellowship training reviewed the full text of each case. Cases were included if an EP was named, the patient encounter was in the emergency department, the interpretation or failure to perform an ultrasound was a central issue and the application was within the American College of Emergency Physician (ACEP) ultrasound core applications. In order to assess deferred risk, cases that involved ultrasound examinations that could have been performed by an EP but were deferred to radiology were included. We identified five cases. All reported decisions alleged a failure to perform an ultrasound study or a failure to perform it in a timely manner. All studies were within the scope of emergency medicine and were ACEP emergency ultrasound core applications. A majority of cases (n=4) resulted in a patient death. There were no reported cases of failure to interpret or misdiagnoses. In a five-year period from January 2008 through December 2012, five malpractice cases involving EPs and ultrasound examinations that are ACEP core emergency ultrasound applications were documented in the Westlaw database. All cases were related to failure to perform an ultrasound study or failure to perform a study in a timely manner and none involved failure to interpret or misdiagnosis when using of POC ultrasound.

Objective: Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) is becoming increasingly available for neonatologists and pediatric subspecialists (PSS); however, concerns over potential litigation from possible missed diagnoses or incorrect management have been documented. This study aims to define the extent and quality of lawsuits filed against neonatologists and PSS related to POCUS. Study Design: We conducted a retrospective study of all United States reported state and federal cases in the Westlaw database from January 1990 through October 2015. Cases were reviewed and included if either a neonatologist or PSS were accused of misconduct or the interpretation or failure to perform an ultrasound/echocardiogram was discussed. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the data. Results: Our search criteria returned 468 results; 2 cases were determined to be relevant to the study objective. The two cases alleged a failure to perform a diagnostic test and implicated POCUS as an option. There were no cases of neonatologists and PSS being sued for POCUS performance or interpretation. Conclusion: This study of a major legal database suggests that POCUS use and interpretation is not a significant cause of lawsuits against neonatologists and PSS.

Adoption of appropriate use criteria has not had a major impact on the frequency of “rarely appropriate” tests, with the rarely appropriate tests rate remaining at ∼20% in most institutions. We sought whether access to hand-held ultrasound (HHU) could be an alternative means of reducing rarely appropriate requests. We compared 2 approaches to rarely appropriate requests; “standard transthoracic echocardiography” (SE) as requested (control) and HHU as a gatekeeper (HHU). Patients were followed up for 6 months and assessed for end points including time until scan, repeat echocardiography/cost of either strategy, new major pathology, and change in management. The most common rarely appropriate requests in both groups were assessment of infective endocarditis without positive blood cultures and precordial murmur evaluation in absence of any other signs or symptoms of cardiovascular disease. The groups had comparable age, gender, requesting physician, and inpatient versus outpatient distribution. HHU led to a 59% reduction in rarely appropriate requests requiring SE. HHU significantly reduced time to decision for inpatients (0 [interquartile range 0, 1] vs 2 days [interquartile range 1, 4], p <0.001) and total cost of echocardiography (109 ± 86 vs 181 ± 37 USD, p <0.001). New major pathology was identified in 29% and 23% of HHU and SE, respectively. There was no difference with respect to change in management. In conclusion, HHU can be an effective gatekeeper to SE for rarely appropriate echocardiograms, reducing time to echocardiography and cost while satisfying the referring physician and avoiding repeat requests for SE. HHU provides a safety net that identifies potential important findings in rarely appropriate requests.

To investigate the comparability of glucose levels measured with blood gas analyzers (BGAs) and by central laboratories (CLs). Glucose measurements obtained between June 1, 2007, and March 1, 2016, at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center were reviewed. The agreement between CL and BGA results were assessed using Bland-Altman, consensus error grid (CEG), and surveillance error grid (SEG) analyses. We further analyzed the BGAs’ performance against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2014 draft guidance and 2016 final guidance for blood glucose monitoring and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197:2013 standard. We analyzed 2671 paired glucose measurements, including 50 pairs of hypoglycemic values (1.9%). Bland-Altman analysis yielded a mean bias of −3.1 mg/dL, with 98.1% of paired values meeting the 95% limits of agreement. In the hypoglycemic range, the mean bias was −0.8 mg/dL, with 100% of paired values meeting the 95% limits of agreement. When using CEG analysis, 99.9% of the paired values fell within the no risk zone. Similar results were found using SEG analysis. For the FDA 2014 draft guidance, our data did not meet the target compliance rate. For the FDA 2016 final guidance, our data partially met the target compliance rate. For the ISO standard, our data met the target compliance rate. In this study, the agreement for glucose measurement between common BGAs and CL instruments met the ISO 2013 standard. However, BGA accuracy did not meet the stricter requirements of the FDA 2014 draft guidance or 2016 final guidance. Fortunately, plotting these results on either the CEG or the SEG revealed no results in either the great or extreme clinical risk zones.

Growing evidence supports emergency physician (EP)-performed point-of-care ultrasound (PoC US). However, there is a utilization gap between academic emergency departments (ED) and other emergency settings. We elucidated barriers to PoC US use in a multistate sample of predominantly non-academic EDs to inform future strategies to increase PoC US utilization, particularly in non-academic centers. In 2010, we surveyed ED directors in five states (Arkansas, Hawaii, Minnesota, Vermont, and Wyoming; n=242 EDs) about general ED characteristics. In four states we determined barriers to PoC US use, proportion of EPs using PoC US, use privileges, and whether EPs can bill for PoC US. Response rates were >80% in each state. Overall, 47% of EDs reported PoC US availability. Availability varied by state, from 34% of EDs in Arkansas to 85% in Vermont. Availability was associated with higher ED visit volume, and percent of EPs who were board certified/board eligible in emergency medicine. The greatest barriers to use were limited training (70%), expense (39%), and limited need (perceived or real) (32%). When PoC US was used by EPs, 50% used it daily, 44% had privileges not requiring radiology confirmation, and 34% could bill separately for PoC US. Only 12% of EPs used it ≥80% of the time when placing central venous lines. Only 47% of EDs in our five-state sample of predominantly non-academic EDs had PoC US immediately available. When available, the greatest barriers to use were limited training, expense, and limited need. Recent educational and technical advancements may help overcome these barriers.

Background As more point of care diagnostics become available, the need to transport and store perishable medical commodities to remote locations increases. As with other diagnostics, malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) must be highly reliable at point of use, but exposure to adverse environmental conditions during distribution has the potential to degrade tests and accuracy. In remote locations, poor quality diagnostics and drugs may have significant negative health impact that is not readily detectable by routine monitoring. This study assessed temperature and humidity throughout supply chains used to transport and store health commodities, such as RDTs. Methods Monitoring devices capable of recording temperature and humidity were deployed to Burkina Faso (8), Senegal (10), Ethiopia (13) and the Philippines (6) over a 13-month period. The devices travelled through government supply chains, usually alongside RDTs, to health facilities where RDTs are stored, distributed and used. The recording period spanned just over a year, in order to avoid any biases related to seasonal temperature variations. Results In the four countries, storage and transport temperatures regularly exceeded 30.0°C; maximum humidity level recorded was above 94% for the four countries. In three of the four countries, temperatures recorded at central storage facilities exceeded pharmaceutical storage standards for over 20% of the time, in another case for a majority of the time; and sometimes exceeded storage temperatures at peripheral sites. Conclusions Malaria RDTs were regularly exposed to temperatures above recommended limits for many commercially-available RDTs and other medical commodities such as drugs, but rarely exceeded the recommended storage limits for particular products in use in these countries. The results underline the need to select RDTs, and other commodities, according to expected field conditions, actively manage the environmental conditions in supply chains in tropical and sub-tropical climates. This would benefit from a re-visit of current global standards on stability of medical commodities based in tropical and sub-tropical climatic zones.

While only 15-20% of patients with foot and ankle injuries presenting to urgent care centers have clinically significant fractures, most undergo radiography. We examined the impact of electronic point-of-care clinical decision support (CDS) on adherence to the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR), as well as use and yield of foot and ankle radiographs in patients with acute ankle injury. We obtained institutional review board approval for this randomized controlled study performed April 18, 2012-December 15, 2013. All ordering providers credentialed at an urgent care affiliated with a quaternary care academic hospital were randomized to either receive or not receive CDS, based on the OAR and integrated into the physician order-entry system, with feedback at the time of imaging order. If the patient met OAR low-risk criteria, providers were advised against imaging and could either cancel the order or ignore the alert. We identified patients with foot and ankle complaints via ICD-9 billing codes and electronic health records and radiology reports reviewed for those who were eligible. Chi-square was used to compare adherence to the OAR (primary outcome), radiography utilization rate and radiography yield of foot and ankle imaging (secondary outcomes) between the intervention and control groups. Of 14,642 patients seen at urgent care during the study period, 613 (4.2%, representing 632 visits) presented with acute ankle injury and were eligible for application of the OAR; 374 (59.2%) of these were seen by control-group providers. In the intervention group, CDS adherence was higher for both ankle (239/258=92.6% vs. 231/374=61.8%, p=0.02) and foot radiography (209/258=81.0% vs. 238/374=63.6%; p<0.01). However, ankle radiography use was higher in the intervention group (166/258=64.3% vs. 183/374=48.9%; p<0.01), while foot radiography use (141/258=54.6% vs. 202/374=54.0%; p=0.95) was not. Radiography yield was also higher in the intervention group (26/307=8.5% vs. 18/385=4.7%; p=0.04). Clinical decision support, previously demonstrated to improve guideline adherence for high-cost imaging, can also improve guideline adherence for radiography - as demonstrated by increased OAR adherence and increased imaging yield.