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.
Age range
18 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Number of complementary exams
Timeframe: Two weeks after inclusion