
==== Front
Cureus
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus Palo Alto (CA)

10.7759/cureus.69796
Other
Internal Medicine
Pulmonology
Integration of Diagnostic Lung Ultrasound Into Clinical Practice by Hospitalists in an Academic Medical Center: A Retrospective Chart Review
Muacevic Alexander
Adler John R
Slaugh John-David 1
Issa Meltiady 2
Grimm Eric 3
Calderon Antonio J 4
Sindelar Solomon 4
Van Hook Reed 4
McBeth Lauren 3
Maw Anna 3
1 Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA
2 Hospital Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
3 Hospital Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA
4 Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA
Meltiady Issa issa.meltiady@mayo.edu
20 9 2024
9 2024
16 9 e6979620 9 2024
Copyright © 2024, Slaugh et al.
2024
Slaugh et al.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
This article is available from https://www.cureus.com/articles/290209-integration-of-diagnostic-lung-ultrasound-into-clinical-practice-by-hospitalists-in-an-academic-medical-center-a-retrospective-chart-review
Background

Point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) is a guideline-recommended imaging modality that has been shown to be more accurate than chest radiography for multiple causes of dyspnea. This study was conducted to understand the impact of LUS on real-world clinical decision-making among hospitalists.

Methods 

A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients who received a LUS while hospitalized at a quaternary care academic medical center between July 2020 and June 2022. Data was extracted from the electronic health record (EHR) into a standardized REDCap form. Cases were defined as patients who had received a LUS that (1) had images archived and accessible to viewing through the EHR and (2) had an imaging report documented in the EHR.

Results

Of the 820 LUSs reviewed, 297 (36.2%) were performed to evaluate for appropriateness of thoracentesis, 205 (25%) for diagnosing or monitoring of pneumonia related to COVID-19, 169 (20.6%) for volume status assessment, 136 (16.6%) for worsening respiratory status, 114 (13.9%) for monitoring pleural effusions, 64 (7.8%) for diagnosing or monitoring of pneumonia not related to COVID-19, and 12 (1.5%) for monitoring of diuresis. Documentation was sufficient to determine clinical decision-making in 730 (89%) of LUSs reviewed, 739 (90.1%) were considered to be diagnostically useful, and 327 (39.9%) changed management.

Conclusions

These findings suggest LUS was diagnostically useful and routinely changed management in hospitalist practice. Further, documentation in the EHR was sufficient to allow for the evaluation of real-world clinical decision-making using LUS, which is an important gap in both the education and health services research literature.

decision-making
covid-19
point of care
hospitalists
lung ultrasound
This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Grant Number UL1 TR002535. Its contents are the authors' sole responsibility and do not necessarily represent official NIH views.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS), an ultrasound of the lung that is performed at the bedside by a clinician, is an imaging modality that can be more accurate than physical exam maneuvers or chest radiography for multiple common causes of dyspnea including pneumonia, pulmonary edema, pleural effusion, and pneumothorax [1-7]. LUS is an American College of Physicians' guideline-recommended test that increases the accuracy of diagnosis in acutely dyspneic patients relative to standard diagnostic approaches while also avoiding exposing patients to ionizing radiation [1]. Given the growing evidence that it expedites accurate diagnosis, multiple professional societies now endorse LUS use in acute care settings [1,8-10].

Despite its many advantages, the adoption of LUS among internal medicine hospitalists remains low [11]. Previously, low adoption has been attributed to a lack of access to equipment and training [12]. However, with the increasing affordability and portability of ultrasound devices as well as increased opportunities for training, the barriers for adoption are likely shifting.

In 2020, we performed a pilot study aimed at understanding the implementation and adoption of LUS by hospitalists [13] within the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied the adoption of LUS through the lens of diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory which aims to explain how new ideas, technologies, or practices spread through a social system over time [14,15]. We used DOI theory to help identify barriers to implementation and develop strategies to facilitate use. Performed two years after the initiation of LUS implementation, the objective of this retrospective chart review was to better understand current clinician adoption, diagnostic utility, and the effect on patient management of LUS in real-world hospitalist practice.

This article was previously presented as a meeting poster at the Society of General Internal Medicine Mountain West Regional Meeting on November 4, 2022.

Materials and methods

This retrospective chart review was determined to be exempt by the University of Colorado Institutional Review Board because it was a secondary analysis of de-identified patient data. Inclusion criteria for this study were all patient encounters in which a hospitalist-specific LUS order was placed between the dates of June 2020 and March 2022. All LUS images were acquired using handheld devices exclusively. Data extracted from the EHR was subsequently imported into a REDCap database [16]. Cases were defined as patients who had received LUS that (1) had images archived and accessible to viewing through the EHR and (2) had a LUS imaging report documented in the EHR. LUS exams not meeting this criteria were excluded from this study.

The principal investigator (PI) trained four members of the research team in data extraction from the EHR. She supervised the first five chart reviews in real time and then checked the first five chart reviews conducted independently, giving feedback to each team member to ensure consistency in data extraction. Data from clinical documentation describing the indication for LUS, the LUS imaging report, and the role LUS played in clinical decision-making were manually extracted by these four members of the research team. When the data extractor deemed there was insufficient documentation to determine the role LUS played in clinical decision-making, this was also documented. The PI randomly selected 10% of encounters and spot-checked the REDCap data forms to ensure they were being filled out with consistency and as intended.

Data extractors adjudicated LUS diagnostic and decision-making outcomes of interest by reviewing the clinical documentation and using a pre-specified criteria (Table 1). LUS exams were considered diagnostically useful if they were documented in the EHR as follows: (1) changing the relative pretest probability of a diagnosis, (2) offering sufficient information for the monitoring of a disease process, or (3) offering sufficient information to decide whether thoracentesis was indicated. LUS was marked as confirming a diagnosis if LUS findings (1) were consistent with a previously documented diagnostic impression or (2) confirmed the presence of a pleural effusion (whether amenable or non-amenable) for thoracentesis. LUS was marked as changing the diagnostic impression if (1) the LUS was not consistent with the original diagnostic impression, (2) the LUS revealed a new diagnosis not considered prior to the exam, or (3) evaluating for thoracentesis revealed a fluid pocket not amenable for thoracentesis or no fluid pocket at all. LUS was marked as changing management if (1) a therapy was given or withheld from a patient based on LUS findings, (2) another imaging modality was ordered based on LUS findings, (3) another specialty or consulting service was asked to evaluate the patient based on LUS findings, or (4) a thoracentesis was performed based on LUS findings. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the results.

Table 1 LUS diagnostic and decision-making outcomes criteria

LUS: lung ultrasound

 	Diagnostically useful	Confirms a diagnosis	Changes the diagnostic impression	Changes management	
Criteria	Changes the relative pretest probability of a diagnosis	Consistent with a previously documented diagnostic impression	Not consistent with the original diagnostic impression    	A therapy is given or withheld based on LUS findings	
Offers sufficient information for the monitoring of a disease process	Confirms the presence of a pleural effusion (whether amenable or non-amenable) for thoracentesis	Reveals a new diagnosis not considered prior to the exam	Another imaging modality is ordered based on LUS findings	
Offers sufficient information to decide whether thoracentesis was indicated	 	Thoracentesis evaluation reveals a fluid pocket not amenable for thoracentesis or no fluid pocket at all	Another specialty or consulting service is asked to evaluate the patient based on LUS findings	
 	 	 	A thoracentesis was performed based on LUS findings	

Results

Cohort demographics were comprised of 46.3% (275/594) males, 56.4% (335/594) White, and 75.3% (447/594) non-Hispanic (Table 2) which reflects the patient population at our specific institution. Most clinicians ordering LUSs were physicians at 56.3% (45/80) followed by physician assistants at 31.3% (25/80) with the remainder being nurse practitioners at 11.3% (9/80). Clinicians who performed or supervised image acquisition and interpreted the LUS images were predominantly physicians at 85.7% (12/14), followed by physician assistants at 14.3% (2/14) (Table 3).

Table 2 Patient demographics

The data has been represented as N and %

 	Number of patients, N=594	Percent of patients	
Patient sex	
Male	275	46.3%	
Female	319	54.7%	
Patient race	
American Indian or Alaska Native	8	1.3%	
Black or African American	83	14%	
Native Hawaiian	2	0.3%	
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander	1	0.2%	
Other Asian	32	5.4%	
Other Pacific Islander	2	0.3%	
Vietnamese	1	0.2%	
White or Caucasian	335	56.4%	
Other	124	20.9%	
More than one race	2	0.3%	
Patient refused	4	0.7%	
Patient ethnicity	
Hispanic	143	24.1%	
Non-Hispanic	447	75.3%	
Patient unable to answer	3	0.5%	
Unknown	1	0.2%	

Table 3 LUS utilization by clinician training and sex

The data has been represented as N and %

LUS: lung ultrasound

 	Authorizing order clinicians, N=80	Finalizing order clinicians, N=14	
Clinician type	
Physician	45 (56.3%)	12 (85.7%)	
Physician assistant	25 (31.3%)	2 (14.3%)	
Nurse practitioner	9 (11.3%)	0 (0%)	
Fellow	1 (1.3%)	0 (0%)	
Clinician sex	
Male	33 (41.3%)	9 (64.3%)	
Female	47 (58.8%)	5 (35.7%)	

Of the 820 LUSs reviewed, 297 were performed to evaluate for appropriateness of thoracentesis, 205 for diagnosing or monitoring pneumonia related to COVID-19, 169 for volume status assessment (evaluating for the presence of sonographic b-lines or pleural effusions), 136 for worsening respiratory status, 114 for monitoring pleural effusions, 64 for diagnosing or monitoring of pneumonia not related to COVID-19, and 12 for monitoring of diuresis (evaluating for a decrease in the number of sonographic b-lines or size of pleural effusions) (Figure 1). Around 79% (648/820) of LUSs were ordered for a single indication, 20.4% (167/820) were ordered for two indications, and the remaining 0.6% (5/820) were ordered for three indications (Table 4).

Figure 1 Indications for LUS

Data has been presented as N

LUS: lung ultrasound

Table 4 Number of indications selected per chart

Data has been represented as N and %

LUS: lung ultrasound

Number of indications selected per LUS	Number of charts, N=820	
1 indication	648 (79%)	
2 indications	167 (20.4%)	
3 indications	5 (0.6%)	

With regard to utility in clinical decision-making, 90.1% (739/820) were determined to be diagnostically useful (i.e., LUS results changed relative pretest probability), and 39.9% (327/820) changed management (i.e., thoracentesis was performed, or diuretics were given based on LUS findings). LUS confirmed a working diagnosis in 71.2% (584/820) of cases and changed diagnostic impression in 28% (230/820) of cases (Figure 2). These data were broken down further to study the impact on clinical decision-making for each LUS indication (Table 5). For example, LUS changed management in 61.6% (183/297) of cases when evaluating for thoracentesis but only in 14.6% (30/205) of cases of pneumonia related to COVID-19. Notably, LUS was considered diagnostically useful, confirmed a working diagnosis, and changed diagnostic impression for each LUS for which monitoring for diuresis was the indication (12/12).

Figure 2 Parameters evaluating LUS outcomes*

*Rounding may cause percentage totals to not equal exactly 100%

Data has been presented as %

LUS: lung ultrasound

Table 5 Impact on clinical decision-making

Data has been presented at N and %

LUS: lung ultrasound

LUS indication 	Diagnostically useful	Confirmed a working diagnosis	Changed management	Changed diagnostic impression	
 	Yes N (%)	Insufficient documentation N (%)	Yes N (%)	Insufficient documentation N (%)	Yes N (%)	Insufficient documentation N (%)	Yes N (%)	Insufficient documentation N (%)	
Evaluation for thoracentesis, n=297	276 (92.9%)	2 (0.7%)	216 (72.7%)	17 (5.7%)	183 (61.6%)	3 (1%)	83 (27.9%)	17 (5.7%)	
Pneumonia not related to COVID-19, n=64	62 (96.9%)	0 (0%)	39 (60.9%)	1 (1.6%)	20 (31.3%)	8 (12.5%)	29 (45.3%)	1 (1.6%)	
Pneumonia related to COVID-19, n=205	182 (88.8%)	2 (1%)	165 (80.5%)	5 (2.4%)	30 (14.6%)	91 (44.4%)	39 (19%)	5 (2.4%)	
Volume status assessment, n=169	160 (94.7%)	2 (1.2%)	108 (63.9%)	5 (2.7%)	76 (45%)	17 (10.1%)	57 (33.7%)	6 (3.6%)	
Worsening respiratory status, n=136	117 (86%)	5 (3.7%)	75 (55.1%)	6 (4.4%)	46 (33.8%)	25 (18.4%)	57 (41.9%)	6 (4.4%)	
Monitoring of pleural effusions, n=114	83 (72.8%)	1 (0.9%)	86 (75.4%)	0 (0%)	42 (36.8%)	5 (4.4%)	35 (30.7%)	0 (0%)	
Monitoring of diuresis	12 (100%)	0 (0%)	12 (100%)	0 (0%)	5 (41.7%)	0 (0%)	12 (100%)	0 (0%)	

Data extractors deemed documentation adequate to evaluate clinical decision-making using LUS in 89% (730/820) of exams reviewed. Insufficient documentation was most common when attempting to determine whether LUS changed management in pneumonia related to COVID-19, comprising 61% (91/150) of insufficient data occurrences.

Discussion

These data demonstrate that LUS was considered diagnostically useful and changed management in 90.1% and 39.9% of archived LUSs, respectively. These results are consistent with other studies performed with more restrictive inclusion criteria [17] and suggest that overall, LUS is a useful clinical tool for hospitalists in real-world practice. Another notable study finding is that the documentation of clinical decision-making using LUS images was present in 89% of cases in which LUS images were uploaded to the EHR. This suggests the current archiving and documentation workflow at our hospital may allow for the evaluation of multiple patient and health system outcomes using LUS in real-world practice including downstream testing and intensive care unit transfers. Evaluation of these outcomes is cited as an evidence gap in current professional society guidelines [1].

To our knowledge, the demonstration of the utility of such a developed archive and documentation infrastructure to understand real-world decision-making using LUS by hospitalists is a unique contribution to the literature. In future work, we plan to leverage EHR data to evaluate real-world LUS application using more rapid and lower-burden methods including data mining of clinical documentation to further automate data extraction. Automated data extraction will facilitate a more timely evaluation of LUS use and allow for interval quality improvement efforts based on up-to-date information.

These data suggest that even in cases in which management was unchanged by LUS, diagnostic uncertainty was often reduced. Future studies should explore potential benefits to reducing diagnostic uncertainty in cases in which management is not changed. These potential benefits include expediting care, reducing clinician cognitive load, improving clinician experience, and reducing additional, less patient-centric tests like chest X-rays and computed tomography [18,19].

Another notable finding is that 61% (91/150) of LUS exams that lacked sufficient documentation in one of the four categories and 69% (91/131) of exams that lacked sufficient documentation to determine whether exam results changed clinical management were in the exams performed to assess patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. This may suggest that clinicians were not using LUS in their clinical decision-making, which is consistent with the qualitative themes found in our previous study [13].

An additional notable finding is that LUS was infrequently used to monitor diuresis. This is an important observation because there is substantial evidence that monitoring b-lines in patients with heart failure is a more accurate measure of volume status changes than traditional methods (i.e., daily weights, ins, and outs) and that the number of b-lines on discharge correlates with death and rehospitalization [20]. There is also randomized controlled trial data demonstrating that LUS-guided diuresis decreases the length of stay in patients with heart failure [21,22]. Given that heart failure is the most common admitting diagnosis in older adults [23], increasing the adoption of LUS for this indication is a high-yield implementation target. This insight provided by our evaluation demonstrates the value of interval analyses to understand how to prioritize implementation efforts.

One of the strengths of this study is the large number of cases reviewed, facilitating a more complete view of the real-world use of LUS within an academic hospitalist group. Additionally, to our knowledge, this is the first study to report clinical decision-making in real-world practice, using handheld devices by hospitalists. This is an important gap in the literature given the growing use of handheld ultrasound devices by clinicians [24]. Limitations of this study include that it was performed at a single hospital, which limits the generalizability of our findings. Additionally, we were unable to capture the number or characteristics of phantom scans: scans performed and used for clinical decision-making but not ordered through the EHR and therefore not traceable. Finally, because data were not collected prospectively, members of the research team had to interpret clinician documentation to categorize EHR data which may have resulted in some amount of error. 

Conclusions

These results suggest that the use of LUS by hospitalists is diagnostically useful and often changes management. It also demonstrates the utility of integrating point-of-care ultrasound images and documentation into the EHR within hospital medicine groups. Further studies should explore the potential advantages of LUS in reducing diagnostic uncertainty and its impact on clinicians' cognitive load and job satisfaction.

John-David Slaugh and Meltiady Issa contributed equally to the work and should be considered co-first authors.

Disclosures

Author Contributions

Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study.

Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following:

Payment/services info: This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Grant Number UL1 TR002535. Its contents are the authors' sole responsibility and do not necessarily represent official NIH views.

Financial relationships: Anna Maw declare(s) consultant honoraria from UltraSight. Dr. Maw declares that consultant honoraria from the company "UltraSight" were paid to her institution.

Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Concept and design:  Meltiady Issa, John-David Slaugh, Eric Grimm, Antonio J. Calderon, Solomon Sindelar, Reed Van Hook, Lauren McBeth, Anna Maw

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data:  Meltiady Issa, John-David Slaugh, Eric Grimm, Antonio J. Calderon, Solomon Sindelar, Reed Van Hook, Lauren McBeth, Anna Maw

Drafting of the manuscript:  Meltiady Issa, John-David Slaugh, Eric Grimm, Antonio J. Calderon, Solomon Sindelar, Reed Van Hook, Lauren McBeth, Anna Maw

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content:  Meltiady Issa, John-David Slaugh, Eric Grimm, Antonio J. Calderon, Solomon Sindelar, Reed Van Hook, Lauren McBeth, Anna Maw

Supervision:  Anna Maw
==== Refs
References

1 Appropriate use of point-of-care ultrasonography in patients with acute dyspnea in emergency department or inpatient settings: a clinical guideline from the American College of Physicians Ann Intern Med Qaseem A Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I Mustafa RA 985 993 174 2021 33900792
2 Accuracy of lung ultrasonography versus chest radiography for the diagnosis of adult community-acquired pneumonia: review of the literature and meta-analysis PLoS One Ye X Xiao H Chen B Zhang S 0 10 2015
3 Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lung ultrasonography and chest radiography in adults with symptoms suggestive of acute decompensated heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis JAMA Netw Open Maw AM Hassanin A Ho PM 0 2 2019
4 Point-of-care ultrasonography for the diagnosis of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema in patients presenting with acute dyspnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis Acad Emerg Med Al Deeb M Barbic S Featherstone R Dankoff J Barbic D 843 852 21 2014 25176151
5 Diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of pleural and lung ultrasound in discriminating cardiogenic causes of acute dyspnea in the emergency department Intern Emerg Med Cibinel GA Casoli G Elia F Padoan M Pivetta E Lupia E Goffi A 65 70 7 2012 22033792
6 Ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of pleural effusions J Hosp Med Soni NJ Franco R Velez MI Schnobrich D Dancel R Restrepo MI Mayo PH 811 816 10 2015 26218493
7 Pleural ultrasonography versus chest radiography for the diagnosis of pneumothorax: review of the literature and meta-analysis Crit Care Alrajab S Youssef AM Akkus NI Caldito G 0 17 2013
8 2021 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: developed by the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) McDonagh TA Metra M Adamo M 523 75 2022 35636830
9 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines Circulation Heidenreich PA Bozkurt B Aguilar D 0 145 2022
10 New international guidelines and consensus on the use of lung ultrasound J Ultrasound Med Demi L Wolfram F Klersy C 309 344 42 2023 35993596
11 Hospitalist perceptions of barriers to lung ultrasound adoption in diverse hospital environments Diagnostics (Basel) Maw AM Ho PM Morris MA 1451 11 2021 34441385
12 Barriers to learning and using point-of-care ultrasound: a survey of practicing internists in six North American institutions Ultrasound J Wong J Montague S Wallace P 19 12 2020 32307598
13 Using Iterative RE-AIM to enhance hospitalist adoption of lung ultrasound in the management of patients with COVID-19: an implementation pilot study Implement Sci Commun Maw AM Morris MA Glasgow RE 89 3 2022 35962441
14 Diffusion of innovations Simon and Schuster, New York, NY Rogers E New York Free Press 2003 https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Diffusion-of-Innovations-5th-Edition/Everett-M-Rogers/9780743258234
15 Disseminating innovations in health care JAMA Berwick DM 1969 1975 289 2003 12697800
16 Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support J Biomed Inform Harris PA Taylor R Thielke R Payne J Gonzalez N Conde JG 377 381 42 2009 18929686
17 The impact of lung ultrasound on clinical-decision making across departments: a systematic review Ultrasound J Heldeweg ML Vermue L Kant M 5 14 2022 35006383
18 Could the use of bedside lung ultrasound reduce the number of chest x-rays in the intensive care unit? Cardiovasc Ultrasound Brogi E Bignami E Sidoti A 23 15 2017 28903756
19 Lung ultrasound scanning for respiratory failure in acutely ill patients: a review Chest Koenig S Mayo P Volpicelli G Millington SJ 2511 2516 158 2020 32835706
20 Prognostic value of residual pulmonary congestion at discharge assessed by lung ultrasound imaging in heart failure Eur J Heart Fail Coiro S Rossignol P Ambrosio G 1172 1181 17 2015 26417699
21 Lung ultrasound in internal medicine efficiently drives the management of patients with heart failure and speeds up the discharge time Intern Emerg Med Mozzini C Di Dio Perna M Pesce G 27 33 13 2018 28803375
22 Lung ultrasound in acute and chronic heart failure: a clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Gargani L Girerd N Platz E 1569 1582 24 2023 37450604
23 Emergency departments, acute heart failure, and admissions: one size does not fit all JACC Heart Fail Pang PS Schuur JD 278 280 2 2014 24952695
24 Zero to 50,000 - the 20th anniversary of the hospitalist N Engl J Med Wachter RM Goldman L 1009 1011 375 2016 27508924
