RESUMO
Objectives: There is no standardized protocol for performing educational point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) that addresses patient-centered ethical issues such as obtaining informed consent. This study sought to define principles for ethical application of educational POCUS and develop consensus-based best practice guidance. Methods: A questionnaire was developed by a trained ethicist after literature review with the help of a medical librarian. A diverse panel including experts in medical education, law, and bioethics; medical trainees; and individuals with no medical background was convened. The panel voted on their level of agreement with ethical principles and degree of appropriateness of behaviors in three rounds of a modified Delphi process. A high level of agreement was defined as 80% or greater consensus. Results: Panelists voted on 38 total items: 15 related to the patient consent and selection process, eight related to practices while performing educational POCUS, and 15 scenarios involving POCUS application. A high level of agreement was achieved for 13 items related to patient consent and selection, eight items related to performance practices, and 10 scenarios of POCUS application. Conclusions: Based on expert consensus, ethical best practices include obtaining informed consent before performing educational POCUS, allowing patients to decline educational POCUS, informing patients the examination is not intended to be a part of their medical evaluation and is not billed, using appropriate draping techniques, maintaining a professional environment, and disclosing incidental findings in coordination with the primary team caring for the patient. These practices could be implemented at institutions to encourage ethical use of educational POCUS when training physicians, fellows, residents, and medical students.
RESUMO
Background: Treatment for partners of patients diagnosed with sexually transmitted infections (STI), referred to as expedited partner therapy (EPT), is infrequently used in the emergency department (ED). This was a pilot program to initiate and evaluate EPT through medication-in-hand ("take-home") kits or paper prescriptions. In this study we aimed to assess the frequency of EPT prescribing, the efficacy of a randomized best practice advisory (BPA) on the uptake, perceptions of emergency clinicians regarding the EPT pilot, and factors associated with EPT prescribing. Methods: We conducted this pilot study at an academic ED in the midwestern US between August-October 2021. The primary outcome of EPT prescription uptake and the BPA impact was measured via chart abstraction and analyzed through summary statistics and the Fisher exact test. We analyzed the secondary outcome of barriers and facilitators to program implementation through ED staff interviews (physicians, physician assistants, and nurses). We used a rapid qualitative assessment method for the analysis of the interviews. Results: During the study period, 52 ED patients were treated for chlamydia/gonorrhea, and EPT was offered to 25% (95% CI 15%-39%) of them. Expedited partner therapy was prescribed significantly more often (42% vs 8%; P < 0.01) when the interruptive pop-up alert BPA was shown compared to not shown. Barriers identified in the interviews included workflow constraints and knowledge of EPT availability. The BPA was viewed positively by the majority of participants. Conclusion: In this pilot EPT program, expedited partner therapy was provided to 25% of ED patients who appeared eligible to receive it. The interruptive pop-up alert BPA significantly increased EPT prescribing. Barriers identified to EPT prescribing should be the subject of future interventions to improve provision of EPT from the emergency department.
