Clinical Use and Barriers of Thoracic Ultrasound: A Survey of Italian Pulmonologists

INTRODUCTION

Thoracic ultrasound is accurate in the diagnosis of a wide range of respiratory diseases. Yet the extent of its use is unknown. Through a national survey, we aimed to explore the clinical use of thoracic ultrasound and the barriers to the diffusion of the technique in Italy.

METHODS

Accademia di Ecografia Toracica (AdET) developed a self-administered survey which was sent by email to Italian pulmonologists via national scientific societies and networks.

RESULTS

Of the 2010 physicians invited, 514 completed the survey (26% response rate). According to 99% of responders, thoracic ultrasound had a relevant clinical role. Seventy-nine percent of the responders used thoracic ultrasound at least once a month. The main settings were: 53% pulmonology ward, 15% outpatient clinic, 15% interventional pulmonology room, 10% internal medicine ward, 4% respiratory intensive care units, and 9% other. Thoracic ultrasound was primarily used: (1) with both diagnostic and interventional aims (72%), (2) as diagnostic imaging (17%), and (3) as guidance for interventional procedures (11%). The main clinical applications were: (1) diagnosis and management of pleural effusion, (2) pneumothorax, (3) pneumonia, (4) cardiac failure, and (5) acute dyspnea. Twenty-one percent of the responders do not use thoracic ultrasound. The main reported bar-riers were: (1) availability of an ultrasound system (52%), (2) lack of protected time and training (22%), and (3) use of the technique by other specialists (15%).

CONCLUSION

Thoracic ultrasound is widely used by Italian pulmonologists and considered a clinically relevant tool. The availability of dedicated ultrasound systems seems to be a major limit of the use of the technique.

Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: a systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an increasingly popular tool to optimize care and bridge the gap between patient experience and clinician understanding. The aim of this review was to identify mechanisms through which PROs facilitate patient-clinician communication in the adult oncology population.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the published literature using the following data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cab Direct, and CDSR. Studies included in this review reported on the outcomes of PRO use, used PROs as an intervention and not as a study outcome measurement tool, included cancer patients or survivors as study participants, and analyzed patient-clinician communication.

RESULTS

We identified 610 unique records, of which 43 publications met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Synthesis of the reviewed studies provided evidence of the usefulness of PROs in facilitating patient-clinician communication on a variety of topics. We identified mechanisms though which PROs influenced patient-clinician communication to include increasing symptom awareness, prompting discussion, streamlining consultations, and facilitating inter-professional communication. Barriers to PRO use in communication improvement include technical problems impeding its administration and completion, compliance issues due to lack of incentive or forgetfulness, and use of PROs that do not appropriately assess issues relevant to the patient. Facilitators include increased education on PRO use, using PRO tools that patients find more acceptable, and providing patient data summaries in an easily accessible format for clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review suggests that PROs facilitate patient-clinician communication through various mechanisms that could perhaps contribute to improvements in symptom management and survival. The impact of PROs on clinical outcomes, however, remains poorly studied.