The debate over point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) governance was rekindled recently when the Canadian Association of Radiologists published a POCUS position statement. The statement rankled some prominent POCUS leaders who hotly debated the statement’s merit via Twitter. This is a debate certainly worth having, but it is hardly a new one. Some likened it to the “turf battles” that emergency physicians successfully overcame well over a decade ago. To be clear, there is a governance problem, largely the result of technology/machine availability outpacing the development of POCUS training, credentialing, and employment guidelines and standards. Referring to the POCUS realm as the “wild, wild west” as Zwank and colleagues did, is somewhat apropos. But to develop the best solutions, we must first define the problem.

The problem – “who”…or “how”? The statement seems to frame the problem around who is best qualified to govern POCUS. Most would agree that radiologists are imaging experts with the most training in interpreting ultrasound. But if using Bahner’s popular I-AIM framework, the image interpretation that most radiologists practice is only one aspect of POCUS. POCUS is a separate entity from consultative ultrasound. Clinician-performed at the point of care, POCUS has different goals, primary of which is to answer focused questions that guide and expedite proper definitive care. Its versatility allows it to be employed well outside of the domain of traditional diagnostic ultrasound, enhancing the safety of bedside procedures, improving the physical exam, and directing further testing & timely care. But when did you last see a radiologist at the bedside of a patient outside of the interventional radiology (IR) suite…one willing to personally “clinically correlate” the image findings rather than just include the phrase in their report?

Rhetorical questions aside, if we lived in a perfect and resource-rich world, we might all be able to dedicate a full year to the performance of ultrasound, or even better, radiologists would come to the bedside to perform the exam within minutes of the order. But we don’t. Fortunately, there’s already quite a bit of data suggesting that the requisite training for non-radiologists to safely employ POCUS isn’t as extensive as some might have us think. Additionally, the American Medical Association’s resolution (AMA HR. 802) long ago recommended that training and education standards for the employment of ultrasound be developed by each physician’s respective specialty society, effectively recognizing the importance of self-governance of this modality. I would argue that the problem, therefore, centers less around the “who” and more around the “how” of governance.

Practical solutions – Interprofessional collaboration is key: The desire to ensure patient safety is the common ground here. We all want to ensure POCUS is safely employed, but how do we best do so? Training and utilization standards can ensure this, but overly restrictive standards can create unnecessary barriers that limit POCUS employment and prevent patients from reaping the demonstrated benefits of POCUS. The radiology specialty undoubtedly has a wealth of valuable expertise to contribute to this debate. Their well-established and validated training and imaging standards could well-serve as a framework upon which POCUS standards could be built and certainly makes them deserving of a seat at the table. But given how and where POCUS is employed, surely the clinicians doing so deserve a seat also. To suggest that “non-imagers” are incapable of developing rigorous, evidence-based training and utilization standards that allow for the safe employment of POCUS simply isn’t fair, nor is it well-substantiated, if we’re using emergency physicians as an example.

Furthermore, unilaterally developed statements such as this are what drive us to remain in our respective silos and can hinder the progress still required in this realm. The solution is a collaborative one, considerate and respectful of the diagnostic ultrasound knowledge and experience of imaging experts, the setting in which POCUS is employed, and the variety of ways clinicians can capably employ it to enhance patient care at the bedside. This collaborative concept isn’t mine, nor is it new, thankfully (more thoughtful discourse on the topic can be found here and here). It’s time that we recognize and leverage the talent that each discipline can offer toward the safe, effective employment of POCUS. It’s time to embrace interdisciplinary and interprofessional collaboration.

The inherent value of POCUS lies in its ability to transcend clinical specialties, settings, and practice scopes. It is distinctly different from consultative ultrasound and therefore shouldn’t be bound by standards created long before POCUS existed. It is a valuable, patient-centered adjunct that demands new standards that are 1) considerate of both its versatility and the multitude of settings in which it can be employed, 2) considerate of the experience of those who have previously employed US, and 3) created by all those actively employing it to enhance the care they directly provide at the bedside. But rest assured, ultrasound no longer belongs only to radiologists, or any one specialty/profession for that matter, and that’s a good thing.

Have you integrated a collaboratively developed approach to POCUS training and/or utilization?  Comment below, or, AIUM members, continue the conversation on Connect, the AIUM’s online community to share your experience.

Jonathan Monti, DSc, PA-C, RDMS, is an Associate Professor of the US Army / Baylor EMPA Residency Program at Madigan Army Medical Center and President of the Society of Point-of-Care Ultrasound (SPOCUS). He is actively engaged in research that assesses POCUS training and its unconventional employment by a myriad of users.