General Practitioners' Perspectives on Appropriate Use of Ultrasonography in Primary Care in Denmark: A Multistage Mixed Methods Study

PURPOSE Researchers aimed to describe general practitioners' understanding of appropriate ultrasound use, to record actual scanning practices of early adopters in general practice, and to identify differences between attitudes and actual practice via a mixed methods analysis. METHODS This study was part of a larger multistage mixed methods research framework exploring the use of ultrasound in general practice in Denmark. We used an exploratory sequential approach in the data collection with initial qualitative findings from an interview study applied to building a quantitative questionnaire utilized in a cohort study. In addition, we merged the qualitative and quantitative data using joint display analysis to compare and contrast the results from the 2 stages of the study. RESULTS In the interviews, general practitioners described appropriate ultrasound use as point-of-care examinations with a clear purpose and limited to predefined specific conditions within delimited anatomic areas. They stated that general practitioners should receive formalized ultrasound training and be skilled in the examinations they perform. In the cohort study, general practitioners performed ultrasound examinations of anatomic areas with or without a defined clinical suspicion. Some performed ultrasound examinations for which they had no previous training or skills. CONCLUSIONS We found a difference between the ideas about the appropriate uses for ultrasound in general practice and the actual use by early adopters in clinical practice. Our findings suggest a need for evidence-based guidelines to support general practitioners in choosing which examinations to perform and strategies for developing and maintaining scanning competency.

Automated summary

Researchers aimed to understand general practitioners' views on appropriate ultrasound use and compare them with actual practices. They found discrepancies between the two, highlighting the need for evidence-based guidelines and training for general practitioners.