Feasibility and outcomes of point-of-care ultrasound training for registered nurses in palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) is increasingly used in palliative care for bedside assessment and symptom management. Despite their integral role in patient care registered nurses (RNs) rarely receive training or use PoCUS in practice. AIMS: To evaluate the feasibility of training palliative care RNs to perform PoCUS exams and expand access to bedside imaging. METHODS: RNs at a local residential hospice and outpatient clinic were trained in PoCUS for urinary retention, ascites and IV access through didactic and hands-on sessions. Data included scan logs, satisfaction surveys and RN feedback. FINDINGS: RNs successfully performed PoCUS for bladder and ascites assessments, enabling timely interventions and reducing hospital visits. Patient and family satisfaction was high, and RNs reported increased confidence and interest in further training. CONCLUSION: Training RNs in PoCUS is feasible and enhances palliative care delivery by supporting timely, appropriate interventions at the bedside.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".