This is an interventional multi-centre study comparing two groups of general practitioners with or without an ultrasound scanner over a period of 6 months. The evaluation focuses on the management of patients for 8 pathologies: * Pneumonia * Pleural effusion * Renal colic * Hepatic colic or cholecystitis * Subcutaneous abscess or cyst * Fracture of long bones * Intra-uterine pregnancy or extra-uterine pregnancy or miscarriage * Phlebitis The principal hypothesis is that there are fewer complementary exams in the group of doctors using ultrasound scanners. The secondary hypotheses are: * There is better patient orientation (emergency care, specialist consultation, return home) in the group of doctors using the ultrasound scanners. * The global cost of the care is lower in the group of doctors using the ultrasound. * Using ultrasound during the consultation decreases the anxiety of the patient. * Using ultrasound increases the duration of the consultation. * There is no difference between the predicted and the real orientation of the patients.
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Number of complementary exams
Timeframe: Two weeks after inclusion