When to incorporate point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) into the initial assessment of acutely ill patients: a pilot crossover study to compare 2 POCUS-assisted simulation protocols

• Main Authors: Courtney E. Bennett, Sandhya Samavedam, Namita Jayaprakash, Alexander Kogan, Ognjen Gajic, Hiroshi Sekiguchi
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2018-09-01
• Series: Cardiovascular Ultrasound
• Subjects: Critical illness; Point-of-care; Simulation; Ultrasound
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12947-018-0132-0

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to determine the ideal timing for providers to perform point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) with the least increase in workload. Methods We conducted a pilot crossover study to compare 2 POCUS-assisted evaluation protocols for acutely ill patients: sequential (physical examination followed by POCUS) vs parallel (POCUS at the time of physical examination). Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups according to which POCUS-assisted protocol (sequential vs parallel) was used during simulated scenarios. Subsequently, the groups were crossed over to complete assessment by using the other POCUS-assisted protocol in the same patient scenarios. Providers’ workloads, measured with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) and time to complete patient evaluation, were compared between the 2 protocols. Results Seven providers completed 14 assessments (7 sequential and 7 parallel). The median (IQR) total NASA-TLX score was 30 (30–50) in the sequential and 55 (50–65) in the parallel protocol (P = .03), which suggests a significantly lower workload in the sequential protocol. When individual components of the NASA-TLX score were evaluated, mental demand and frustration level were significantly lower in the sequential than in the parallel protocol (40 [IQR, 30–60] vs 50 [IQR, 40–70]; P = .03 and 25 [IQR, 20–35] vs 60 [IQR, 45–85]; P = .02, respectively). The time needed to complete the assessment was similar between the sequential and parallel protocols (8.7 [IQR, 6–9] minutes vs 10.1 [IQR, 7–11] minutes, respectively; P = .30). Conclusions A sequential POCUS-assisted protocol posed less workload to POCUS operators than the parallel protocol.