Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Background In recent decades the use of thoracic ultrasound (US) in respiratory medicine has expanded, moving from the near-exclusive domain of radiologists to an indispensable tool for clinicians in the diagnosis and management of respiratory disease. Despite the increase in the number of US-guided interventions being carried out there is a dearth of papers exploring the patient perspectives of these procedures. This study, which was part of a European Respiratory Society (ERS) Task Force on US-guided interventions, aimed to explore patient perspectives on these interventions from people with lived experience. Methods As part of the ERS Task Force on US-guided interventions in respiratory medicine a survey was completed by 37 patients and in-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with three patients about their experiences of US-guided thoracic procedures, including thoracentesis, chest drain insertion, indwelling pleural catheter insertion and percutaneous lung biopsy. Results Key findings showed that time to discuss and having an opportunity to ask questions prior to the procedure was valued by patients; patients would prefer not to have the procedure on the ward; communicating throughout the procedure was calming and reassuring; and, finally, patients were worried about accidently removing their chest drains and found it difficult to get comfortable with a chest drain inserted. Conclusions This small study revealed a number of important considerations for patients when carrying out these commonly performed US-guided procedures. These should be taken into account by healthcare professionals and providers. More qualitative work is needed to better understand the patient perspectives of these procedures.

More information Original publication

DOI

10.1183/23120541.01218-2025

Type

Journal article

Publisher

European Respiratory Society (ERS)

Publication Date

2026-07-01T00:00:00+00:00

Volume

12

Pages

01218 - 2025

Total pages

807