Pain Levels and Injuries by Sonographic Specialty: A Research Study

Objective:

This study aimed to determine whether there was a difference in reported pain and perceived pain levels in different sonography specialties.

Materials and Methods:

An online survey was sent to 28 302 sonographers by the American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonography (ARDMS). Sonographers had to be registered and located within the United States to meet inclusion criteria.

Results:

There were 7993 sonographers who completed the questionnaire. The percentage of sonographers who reported scanning in pain across all specialties was 66.25%, with an average pain level of 4.0. The highest pain and injury levels were reported in the cardiac, vascular, and obstetrics/gynecology specialties. Sonographers scanning greater than 18 scans per day or greater than 30 minutes had the highest levels of perceived pain.

Conclusion:

According to these study results, reported pain in sonographers is decreasing. Certain specialties within sonography are more prone to injury and higher pain levels.

Musculoskeletal pain amongst Australian sonography students and recent graduates and an evaluation of the use of ergonomic education for prevention

Introduction/Purpose

Sonographers develop pain whilst scanning and may not consistently adhere to ergonomic recommendations. The aim was to quantify this within Australian sonography students and recent graduates and to determine whether a relationship exists between: (i) pain and failure to adhere to ergonomic recommendations; and (ii) theoretical and practical ergonomic education during university and clinical placement, and the adherence to recommendations.

Methods

Online questionnaire distributed to Australian student sonographers and sonographers until two years post-graduation.

Results

During scanning, 33/39(84.62%) experienced musculoskeletal pain, and 21/33 (63.64%) experienced pain less than 1.76 full-time equivalent (FTE) days during the two FTE week period. The majority, 37/39 (94.87%), were not consistently adhering to recommendations, with 25/37 (67.57%) only doing so for less than 2.1 FTE days during two FTE weeks. Failure to adhere to ergonomic recommendations and development of musculoskeletal scanning pain was positively correlated (r = 0.7 (P = 0.01)).All participants had received some form of ergonomic education. This education was theoretical and practical during university and clinical placement for 24/39 (61.54%); however, receiving this resulted in no difference for adherence to ergonomic recommendations. Qualitative data demonstrated high workloads, scanning patients with increased body habitus or limited mobility were potential barriers to adherence to ergonomic recommendations.

Discussion

Ergonomic education occurs, yet a lack of knowledge and adherence to recommendations continues. Considerations for other potential barriers are required.

Conclusion

Ensuring students adhere to ergonomic recommendations post-graduation and identifying relevant barriers within the clinical environment are important. Future research to investigate potential barriers around ergonomic adherence is suggested.