BackgroundPaediatric distal forearm fractures are a common ED presentation. They can be diagnosed with point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) as an alternative to X-rays. Given that ED nurse practitioners (NPs) are relied on for the diagnosis of paediatric fractures, it is important to describe the diagnostic accuracy of NP-conducted POCUS versus X-ray.MethodsThis prospective diagnostic study was conducted in a tertiary paediatric hospital in Queensland, Australia, between February 2018 and April 2019. Participants were children aged 4–16 years with a clinically non-angulated, suspected distal forearm fracture. Diagnosis from 6-view NP-administered POCUS of the distal radius and ulna was compared against the reference standard of 2-view X-ray. Each patient received both imaging modalities. Overall forearm diagnosis was classified as ‘no’, ‘buckle’ or ‘other’ fracture for both modalities. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for ‘any’ fracture (‘buckle’ and ‘other’ fractures combined). Secondary outcomes included diagnostic accuracy for ‘other’ fractures versus ‘buckle’ and ‘no’ fractures combined, and pain, imaging duration and preference for modality.ResultsOf 204 recruited patients, 129 had X-ray-diagnosed forearm fractures. The sensitivity and specificity for NP-administered POCUS were 94.6% (95% CI 89.2% to 97.3%) and 85.3% (95% CI 75.6% to 91.6%), respectively. ‘Other’ fractures (mostly cortical breach fractures), when compared with ‘buckle’/ ‘no’ fractures, had sensitivity 81.0% (95% CI 69.1% to 89.1%) and specificity 95.9% (95% CI 91.3% to 98.1%). Pain and imaging duration were clinically similar between modalities. There was a preference for POCUS by patients, parents and NPs.ConclusionsNP-administered POCUS had clinically acceptable diagnostic accuracy for paediatric patients presenting with non-angulated distal forearm injuries. This included good sensitivity for diagnosis of ‘any’ fracture and good specificity for diagnosis of cortical breach fractures alone. Given the preference for POCUS, and the lack of difference in pain and duration between modalities, future research should consider functional outcomes comparing POCUS with X-ray in this population in a randomised controlled trial.
Objective
To understand healthcare worker and patient experience with peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion in patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) including the use of ultrasound (US).
Methods
Descriptive study using 1-on-1 semi-structured interviews conducted between August 2020 and January 2021. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients with DIVA who had PIVC experience. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Interview data were than mapped to the implementation theory Behaviour Change Wheel to inform implementation strategies.
Results
In total 78 interviews (13 patients; 65 HCPs) were completed with respondents from metropolitan (60%), regional (25%) and rural/remote (15%) settings across Australia. Thematic analysis revealed 4 major themes: i) Harmful patient experiences persist, with patient insights not leveraged to effect change; ii) ‘Escalation’ is just a word on the front lines; iii) Heightened risk of insertion failure without resources and training; and iv) Paving the way forward–‘measures need to be in place to prevent failed insertion attempts. Themes were mapped to the behaviour change wheel and implementation strategies developed, these included: staff education, e-health record for DIVA identification, DIVA standard of care and DIVA guidelines to support escalation and ultrasound use.
Conclusion(s)
DIVA patients continue to have poor healthcare experiences with PIVC insertion. There is poor standardisation of DIVA assessment, escalation, US use and clinician education across hospitals. Quality, safety, and education improvement opportunities exist to improve the patient with DIVA experience and prevent traumatic insertions. We identified a number of implementation strategies to support future ultrasound and DIVA pathway implementation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.