Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in Norwegian general practice

Hans-Christian Myklestul, Trygve Skonnord, Mette Brekke, Hans-Christian Myklestul, Trygve Skonnord, Mette Brekke

Abstract

Objective: To assess the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in Norwegian general practice.Design: Retrospective register study based on general practitioners' (GPs') reimbursement claims.Setting: Norwegian general practice excluding out-of-hours clinics in 2009, 2012 and 2016.Subjects: GPs who scanned patients for a given set of symptoms and medical conditions.Main outcome measures: Number and characteristics of GPs performing POCUS. Number and type of scans carried out.Results: The number of scanning GPs increased from 479 in 2009 to 2078 in 2016. The number of registered scans increased from 8962 to 55921. In 2016, approximately 30% of Norwegian GPs sent at least one reimbursement claim for POCUS. Seven out of 10 GPs did not scan every month. The gender distribution of scanning GPs was equal to that of the total GP population. Male GPs scanned four times more frequent than female GPs. Specialist in family medicine scanned twice as much as non-specialist. The use of POCUS among GPs in different counties varied from 31.6 to 198.5 per 10,000 citizens.Conclusions: The number of Norwegian GPs using POCUS and the number of scans have increased substantially from 2009 to 2016. The use of the various scans, based on the use of reimbursement claims, have evolved differently. The reasons for this are not known. The low number of scans carried out by most GPs raises a concern when it comes to the quality of the performed scans.KEY POINTS30% of Norwegian general practitioners (GPs) used point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in 2016.The use of POCUS increased six-fold from 2009 to 2016.Three out of four scanning GPs performed less than 10 scans annually.Male GPs performed 80% of the claimed scans.

Keywords: Point-of-care ultrasound; gender difference; general practice; geographical difference; reimbursement.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Number of GPs claiming reimbursement for POCUS, by gender.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Number of GPs claiming reimbursement for POCUS, by age.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Number of GPs grouped after number of POCUS reimbursement claims per year.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Numbers of ultrasound reimbursements claims per 10,000 citizens by Norwegians counties.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Number of POCUS reimbursements claims by type of examination.

References

    1. Bratland SZ. Ultralyddiagnostikk anvendt i almenpraksis. Samlet vurdering [Ultrasonic diagnosis used in general practice. A summarized evaluation]. Tidsskr nor Laegeforen. 1985;105:1954–1955.
    1. Eggebo TM, Dalaker K. Ultralydundersøkelser av gravide i allmennpraksis [Ultrasonic diagnosis of pregnant women performed in general practice]. Tidsskr nor Laegeforen. 1989;109:2979–2981.
    1. Hall JW, Holman H, Bornemann P, et al. . Point of care ultrasound in family medicine residency programs: a CERA study. Fam Med. 2015;47(9):706–711.
    1. Mengel-Jorgensen T, Jensen MB. Variation in the use of point-of-care ultrasound in general practice in various European countries. Results of a survey among experts. Eur J Gen Pract. 2016;22(4):274–277.
    1. Genc A, Ryk M, Suwała M, et al. . Ultrasound imaging in the general practitioner’s office - a literature review. J Ultrason. 2016;16(64):78–86.
    1. Nelson BP, Sanghvi A. Out of hospital point of care ultrasound: current use models and future directions. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2016;42(2):139–150.
    1. Bornemann P, Barreto T. Point-of-care ultrasonography in family medicine. Am Fam Physician. 2018;98(4):200–202.
    1. Andersen CA, Holden S, Vela J, et al. . Point-of-care ultrasound in general practice: a systematic review. Ann Fam Med. 2019;17(1):61–69.
    1. Moore CL, Copel JA. Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(8):749–757.
    1. Lindgaard K, Riisgaard L. Validation of ultrasound examinations performed by general practitioners. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2017;35(3):256–261.
    1. Andersen GN, Viset A, Mjolstad OC, et al. . Feasibility and accuracy of point-of-care pocket-size ultrasonography performed by medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14(1):156.
    1. Diprose W, Verster F, Schauer C. Re-examining physical findings with point-of-care ultrasound: a narrative review. N Z Med J. 2017;130(1449):46–51.
    1. Wittenberg M. Will ultrasound scanners replace the stethoscope? BMJ. 2014;348(7):g3463–g3463.
    1. Kristoffersen JE, Roksund G. Ultralyd i allmennpraksis [Ultrasonography in general practice]. Tidsskr nor Laegeforen. 2007;127:2414.
    1. Lovdata . Forskrift om stønad til dekning av utgifter til undersøkelse og behandling hos lege [Regulations for grants to cover the costs of examination and treatment by a doctor]: Lovdata; 1981. [cited 2018 Sep 07]. Available from: .
    1. Myhr K, Sandvik H, Morken T, et al. . Point-of-care ultrasonography in Norwegian out-of-hours primary health care. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2017;35(2):120–125.
    1. Laerum F, Mørland B. Ultralyddiagnostikk i primaerhelsetjenesten – ny teknologi kan gi økt utbredelse [Ultrasounddiagnostics in primary health care - new technology can cause extensive use]. Tidsskr nor Legeforen. 2001;121:3101–3103.
    1. Wordsworth S, Scott A. Ultrasound scanning by general practitioners: is it worthwhile?. J Public Health Med. 2002;24(2):88–94.
    1. Management data for the GP scheme 2016 Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Directorate of Health ; 2016. [cited 2017]. Available from: .
    1. Bratland SZ, Ødegaard S. Ultralydundersøkelse – noe for allmennpraksis? [Ultrasonography – something for general practice?]. Tidsskr nor Legeforen. 2007;127:1923.
    1. Nilsen NR. Ultralyd i allmennpraksis [Ultrasonography in general practice]. Tidsskr nor Legeforen. 2001;121:3444.
    1. Gilja OH. Mobilultralyd i en medisinsk avdeling [Mobile ultrasounddevice in a medical ward]. Tidsskr nor Legeforen. 2003;123:2713–2714.
    1. Ringberg U, Fleten N, Deraas TS, et al. . High referral rates to secondary care by general practitioners in Norway are associated with GPs’ gender and specialist qualifications in family medicine, a study of 4350 consultations. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):147.
    1. Eide TB, Straand J, Bjorkelund C, et al. . Differences in medical services in Nordic general practice: a comparative survey from the QUALICOPC study. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2017;35(2):153–161.
    1. Olaf M, Cooney R. Deep venous thrombosis. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2017;35(4):743–770.
    1. Geitung JT, Grøttum P. Ultralyd som integrert del av medisinstudiet [Ultrasonography as an integrated part of the medical curriculum]. Tidsskriftet. 2016;136(14/15):1192–1192.
    1. Micks T, Braganza D, Peng S, et al. . Canadian national survey of point-of-care ultrasound training in family medicine residency programs. Can Fam Physician. 2018;64(10):e462–e467.
    1. Glaso M, Medias IB, Straand J. Diagnostisk ultralyd i en fastlegepraksis [Diagnostic ultrasound in general practice]. Tidsskr nor Laegeforen. 2007;127:1924–1927.
    1. Borthne R, Lied A, Karevold A. Bobling i brystet [Gurgling in the chest]. Tidsskriftet. 2014;134(1):47–47.
    1. Lokkegaard T, Todsen T, Nayahangan LJ, et al. . Point-of-care ultrasound for general practitioners: a systematic needs assessment. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2020;38 (1):1–9.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi