Background/objectives Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) improves patient care by expedited diagnosis and safer procedures. Despite POCUS benefits, some clinicians, including emergency physicians, do not readily use POCUS. The study objective identified barriers to clinical POCUS use and performed an intervention to address barriers and increase clinical POCUS use.

Methods A prospective cohort study at a single academic hospital included ED attendings, residents, and advance practice providers (APPs). Participants were surveyed on perceived POCUS use barriers (primary outcome) and clinical POCUS were numbers recorded from July 2023-June 2024. A multi-faceted intervention from December 2023-January 2024 addressed identified barriers and involved: in-person POCUS education during shift by ultrasound faculty, clinical POCUS workflow demonstration during resident conference/faculty meetings, and QR code reference files on machines. Secondary outcomes were POCUS workflow knowledge exam scores, clinical ED POCUS scans performed, and revenue. Pre-/post-intervention analysis was performed using independent t-tests.

Results 42/104 ED providers (40.4%) responded to surveys pre-intervention and 28 post-intervention (28.3%). 56 physicians/APPs participated in the in-person POCUS intervention (17 attendings, 34 residents, 5 APPs). Perceived POCUS barriers were time constraints on shift; internet/connectivity problems and losing saved images; forgetting to finish exam worksheets online; images not uploading into Butterfly cloud by the end of shift; and residents performing “phantom scans”. Mean knowledge scores were 10/11 (89%), with 26/28 participants passing (score >90%). Participant self-perceived comfort in performing diagnostic and procedural POCUS increased (p=0.100, p=0.784 respectively). Procedural teaching comfort increased (p=0.022) but not diagnostic teaching (p=0.166). POCUS scan numbers increased from 1511 to 2130 (p=0.0035). Monthly POCUS revenue increased ~$55K in total billed (p=0.0439) and $10K reimbursed (p=0.1225).

Conclusion Identified barriers were incorporated into a multi-faceted approach to improve clinical POCUS workflow processes, with increased ED POCUS use and revenue post-intervention. Future individualized interventions for low POCUS users and institutional initiatives with clinical champions can be studied for improved patient care.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The IRB of Duke University Health System waived ethical approval for this work on November 24, 2023 (Pro00114618). DUHS IRB determined that this work does not meet the definition of research.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

“The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request and are included in the supplemental materials. The review protocol is included in the methods.”

This study was determined exempt by the Institutional Review Board (Pro00114618).