Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-w5x57 Total loading time: 0.269 Render date: 2022-07-03T18:15:54.669Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Quality of abdominal ultrasound image acquisition by novice practitioners following a minimal training session on healthy volunteers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2020

Bradley Waterman*
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, Western University, London, ON
Kristine Van Aarsen
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, Western University, London, ON
Michael Lewell
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, Western University, London, ON ORNGE, Mississauga, ON
Frank Myslik
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, Western University, London, ON
Michael Peddle
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, Western University, London, ON ORNGE, Mississauga, ON
Sean Doran
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, Western University, London, ON Southwest Ontario Regional Base Hospital Program, London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON
*
Correspondence to:LHSC Victoria Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, 800 Commissioners Road East, LondonON, N6A 5W9; Email: Bradley.Waterman@lhsc.on.ca

Abstract

Background

Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) is an essential tool for physicians to guide treatment decisions in both hospital and prehospital settings. Despite the potential patient care and system utilization benefits of prehospital ultrasound, the financial burden of a “hands-on” training program for large numbers of paramedics remains a barrier to implementation. In this study, we conducted a prospective, observational, double-blinded study comparing paramedics to emergency physicians in their ability to generate usable abdominal ultrasound images after a 1-hour didactic training session.

Methods

Canadian aeromedical critical care paramedics were compared against emergency medicine physicians in their ability to generate adequate abdominal ultrasound images on five healthy volunteers. Quality of each scan was evaluated by a trained expert in POCUS who was blinded to the identity of the participant using a 5-point Likert scale and using the standardized QUICk Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) assessment tool.

Results

Fourteen Critical care paramedics and four emergency department (ED) physicians were voluntarily recruited. Of paramedics, 57% had never used ultrasound before, 36% has used ultrasound without formal training, and 7% had previous training. Physicians had a higher proportion of usable scans compared with paramedics (100% v. 61.4%, Δ38.6%; 95% confidence interval, 19.3–50.28).

Conclusions

Paramedics were not able to produce images of interpretable quality at the same frequency when compared with emergency medicine physicians. However, a 61.4% usable image rate for paramedics following a short 1-hour didactic training session is promising for future studies, which could incorporate a short hands-on tutorial while remaining cost-effective.

Résumé

RésuméContexte

L’échographie au chevet (EC) est un outil essentiel aux médecins : elle les guide dans les décisions relatives au traitement, et ce, en milieu tant hospitalier qu'extrahospitalier. Malgré les avantages que peut offrir l’échographie en phase préhospitalière pour les patients et les systèmes de soins de santé, le fardeau financier d'une formation pratique d'un grand nombre d'ambulanciers paramédicaux constitue un obstacle important à la mise en œuvre de la pratique. Aussi avons-nous réalisé une étude d'observation, prospective, à double insu, visant à comparer la capacité d'ambulanciers paramédicaux, avec celle d'urgentologues, à produire des images d’échographie abdominale de qualité suffisamment bonne pour être utilisables, et ce, après une séance de formation théorique de 1 heure.

Méthode

L’étude, menée au Canada, consistait en la comparaison d'images d’échographie abdominale, quant à leur qualité d'utilisation, produites par des paramédicaux en soins critiques navigants, sur 5 volontaires en bonne santé, avec celles produites par des urgentologues. La qualité de chacune des images a été évaluée par un spécialiste de l'EC tenu dans l'ignorance des participants, sur une échelle de Likert à 5 points et à l'aide de l'instrument d’évaluation normalisé QUICk FAST.

Résultats

Ont participé à l’étude 14 paramédicaux en soins critiques et 4 urgentologues, tous volontaires. Parmi les ambulanciers paramédicaux, 57% n'avaient jamais pratiqué d’échographie, 36% avaient déjà pratiqué des échographies sans avoir reçu de formation structurée et 7% avaient déjà reçu une formation. Il est ressorti de l’étude que les médecins avaient produit un plus grand nombre d'images utilisables que les ambulanciers paramédicaux (100% contre 61,4%; écart : 38,6%; IC à 95% : 19,3–50,28).

Conclusion

Les ambulanciers paramédicaux n'ont pas produit d'images de qualité suffisamment bonne pour être interprétables aussi souvent que les urgentologues. Toutefois, le fait que 61,4% des images produites par les ambulanciers paramédicaux étaient utilisables, et ce, après seulement une petite heure de formation théorique, laisse croire qu'il serait à la fois possible et rentable d'intégrer une courte formation pratique à l'aide d'un didacticiel dans des études futures.

Type
ORNGE Supplement
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2020

CLINICIAN'S CAPSULE

What is known about the topic?

Prehospital point of care ultrasound (POCUS) can aid in patient care decisions, but the ideal training regimen is unclear.

What did this study ask?

Can paramedics after a 1-hour didactic training session, generate adequate POCUS images when compared with emergency physicians.

What did this study find?

Physicians had a higher proportion of usable scans compared with paramedics (100% v. 61.4%).

Why does this study matter to clinicians?

Prehospital ultrasound is an evolving resource, but to determine a cost-effective method to train paramedics is essential.

INTRODUCTION

Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) is an essential tool for physicians to guide treatment decisions in both hospital and prehospital settings. The potential benefits of POCUS are well established for the extended Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (eFAST), which identifies conditions such as hemoperitoneum, pneumothorax, cardiac standstill, and cardiac tamponade.Reference Osterwalder, Mathis and Hoffmann1,Reference Netherton, Milenkovic, Taylor and Davis2 Identifying these conditions can assist prehospital systems to triage patients, direct patients to appropriate treatment facilities, and decrease the time to activate important health care services.Reference Clarke, Trooskin, Doshi, Greenwald and Mode3,Reference Rudolph, Sørensen, Svane, Hesselfeldt and Steinmetz4 Currently, the applications of ultrasound by Emergency Medical Services are primarily used by countries where physicians are part of the prehospital team.Reference von Vopelius-Feldt and Benger5 In Canada, POCUS is beginning to be incorporated in the prehospital setting to help direct patient care, and studies are being performed to determine the best use of POCUS. A recent study by O'Dochartaigh et al. has found that patients with a high shock index from either medical or traumatic causes specifically benefit from the use of prehospital POCUS through improved triaging of patients in the field.Reference O'Dochartaigh, Douma, Alexiu, Ryan and MacKenzie6

Despite the potential patient care and system use benefits of prehospital ultrasound, the financial burden of an intensive “hands-on” training program for large numbers of paramedics remains a barrier to implementation. Currently, there is no consensus in the literature for the optimal training regimen for paramedics who are novice ultrasound users.Reference Yates and Baylous7,Reference Press, Miller and Hassan8 Studies typically incorporate a combination of “hands-on” and didactic training sessions to teach paramedics how to perform eFAST exams. Determining the balance between cost and effectiveness of training regimens is essential before implementing POCUS into large prehospital systems. In this study, we conducted a prospective, observational double-blinded study comparing paramedics to emergency physicians in their ability to generate usable abdominal ultrasound images after a 1-hour didactic training session.

METHODS

Study design

A prospective, observational, double-blinded study was conducted in which Canadian aeromedical critical care paramedics were compared against emergency medicine physicians (staff and residents) in their ability to generate adequate abdominal ultrasound images on five healthy volunteers after a 1-hour didactic training course. The trial used one ultrasound system (Philips Lumify S4-1 broadband phased array 4-1 MHz transducer) for all scans performed in this study.

Study setting

The training sessions and all scanning of volunteers took place at the Middlesex-London Paramedic Services Headquarters in London, Ontario, Canada.

Population

A letter asking for volunteers from the critical care paramedic contingent at two Ornge Air Ambulance bases (London and Toronto) was circulated through Ornge Management. Only travel expenses were covered. Five healthy volunteers were recruited by means of email to participate in this study from the general population. The volunteers were not compensated for their participation. Four emergency medicine physicians were recruited from a major academic health sciences center (London Health Sciences Centre), and formed the physician group. Physicians were not compensated for their participation. One day for training and ultrasound scanning was selected and occurred on May 21, 2019.

Intervention

A standardized 1-hour didactic training course was taught to all paramedics and emergency staff. The training course consisted of an introduction to the ultrasound system, including how to turn on the system, how to position the probe, and how to change gain and depth settings on the ultrasound device. The training then focused on identifying anatomic and ultrasonographic landmarks necessary for performing an appropriate abdominal ultrasound exam. The three areas of focus were the hepatorenal space, splenorenal space, and the retrovesicular/retrouterine pouch in the pelvis. The didactic session also included training for identifying signs of intraperitoneal free fluid.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome of this study was to determine if paramedics could produce usable scans after a 1-hour didactic training session. Overall quality of each scan was evaluated by a trained expert in POCUS who was blinded to the identity of the participant using a 5-point Likert scale from “Very Poor” to “Very Good.” Scans that were “Very Good,” “Good,” and “Average,” were considered to be usable for determining if the scan could be positive or negative for free fluid. Scans deemed “Poor” or “Very Poor” were considered unusable. Images were evaluated using the standardized QUICk FAST assessment tool.Reference Ziesmann, Park, Unger and Kirkpatrick9 This tool was chosen as it outlines the important features in each anatomic area for this study. The components of the QUICk FAST assessment tool are outlined in the online Appendix 1.

Total assessment tool scores for each area were calculated and compared between paramedic and physician participants using standard t-tests.

Secondary outcomes included the time each participant required to complete the scans. This time was measured by an observing member of the research team and calculated from when the participant first grasped the probe to when the participant stated they had completed image acquisition.

Data analysis

All time outcomes were reported as means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were compared between groups using standard t-test. Overall proportion of usable scans was compared between paramedics and physicians and reported using the difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All data analyses were completed using SPSS version 23.

RESULTS

Fourteen Critical care paramedics and four ED physicians (two staff physicians and two residents) were voluntarily recruited. The critical care paramedics were mostly ultrasound-naïve, whereas the emergency physicians all had ultrasound training. Of paramedic participants, 57% had never used ultrasound before, 36% has used ultrasound without formal training, and 7% had previous ultrasound training. Physicians had a higher proportion of usable scans compared with paramedics (100% versus 61.4%, Δ38.6%; 95% CI, 19.3–50.28) (Table 1). When measuring average time to completion of each abdominal ultrasound scan, there was a statistically significant difference between emergency physicians compared with paramedics (2.91 minutes v. 5.24 minutes; Δ2.33 95% CI, 1.01–3.64; p = 0.002).

Table 1. Comparison of scan quality by operator

DISCUSSION

Although novice ultrasound practitioners were not able to produce equivalent quality images at the same frequency as emergency physicians after a short didactic training, this was expected as paramedics have less overall ultrasound training and exposure than their physician counterparts. Of the scans obtained by paramedics, 61.4% were deemed to be of usable quality. Considering the very short training session, we consider this to be a positive outcome. Furthermore, we believe the number of usable scans could be improved with the addition of further hands-on training and/or real time feedback by experienced providers.

Our study adds to the body of literature examining the optimal ultrasound training regimen for paramedics as this training was conducted with live patients and, therefore, more indicative of real-world utility of ultrasound application(s) in the prehospital setting. In a study by Heegaard et al., 40 paramedics used ultrasound to obtain and interpret FAST and abdominal aortic ultrasound images on live patients in the field after a 6-hour training course.Reference Heegaard, Hildebrandt, Spear, Chason, Nelson and Ho10 They found that only 7.7% of scans obtained in their study were deemed unusable by the blinded physician reviewer. This was significantly lower than what was found in our study. This difference could be in part due to differing methodologies as paramedics had a more extensive initial training session (3 hours of hands-on ultrasound training) and two 1-hour refresher training courses over the 1-year period during which the images were collected.

Recent studies have evaluated novel means to improve ultrasound image quality and interpretation with minimal training. Boniface et al. had 51 ultrasound naive paramedics undergo a 20-minute training program. A subsequent POCUS assessment on a live volunteer with a remote emergency physician providing real-time feedback by means of radio guiding image acquisition during the FAST examination resulted in success rates of 100% for obtaining adequate images.Reference Boniface, Shokoohi, Smith and Scantlebury11 Additionally, it was found that, under emergency medicine physician guidance, paramedics could obtain a complete FAST exam in 4.36 minutes. When compared with our study, paramedics required an average time of 5.24 minutes. Differences in methodology and the benefit of physician guidance not only demonstrated a difference in scanning time but also that paramedics can produce usable scans efficiently.

Studies have also found that the presence of intra-abdominal fluid aids in the accurate interpretation and acquisition of images in FAST exams.Reference Kim, Shin, Song and Park12 A study by Kim et al. trained six emergency medical technicians with 2 hours of didactic teaching and 2 hours of hands-on training. Patients that were scanned had already undergone abdominal CT imaging. Ultrasound images were interpreted by the emergency medical technicians and compared with radiology reports from CT scans. Sensitivity was 61.3% and specificity was 96.3% for the detection of peritoneal cavity fluid. However, they found that inpatients with large amounts of peritoneal fluid, the emergency medical technician ultrasound sensitivity improved significantly (86.2%). Given that none of the volunteers in our study had intraperitoneal free fluid, it is possible that generating adequate high-quality images could have been more challenging.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation of our study is the ability to apply our findings to the field use of ultrasound technology for paramedics. Paramedics and emergency physicians were instructed to take as much time as needed to identify the anatomic areas of interest and then save representative images, which were then evaluated by our blinded expert reviewer. This process does not reflect real-world circumstances. Our live human volunteer patients also did not have free fluid within their abdomen, so we are unable to comment as to the ability of paramedics to interpret the images they obtained or their ability to identify free fluid. We had a relatively small sample of both paramedics and emergency medicine physicians, making this difficult to determine if our findings would apply to the broader population.

CONCLUSION

This study aimed to determine if paramedics could generate usable ultrasound images after a short 1-hour didactic-only training session. Paramedics were not able to produce images of interpretable quality at the same frequency when compared with emergency medicine physicians. However, a 61.4% usable image rate for paramedics following a short 1-hour didactic training session is promising for future studies that could incorporate a short hands-on tutorial while remaining cost-effective. Further studies examining the optimal training time and modality, as well as utility of remote ultrasound technology, are needed to determine the optimal use of prehospital ultrasound in Ontario.

Supplemental material

The supplemental material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2020.29.

Acknowledgments

This study was approved by the Western Health Science Research Ethics Board.

Competing interests

None.

Financial support

None.

References

Osterwalder, J, Mathis, G, Hoffmann, B. New perspectives for modern trauma management - lessons learned from 25 years FAST and 15 Years E-FAST. Ultraschall Med 2019;40(5):560–83.Google ScholarPubMed
Netherton, S, Milenkovic, V, Taylor, M, Davis, PJ. Diagnostic accuracy of eFAST in the trauma patient: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CJEM 2019;21:727–38. doi:10.1017/cem.2019.381.Google ScholarPubMed
Clarke, JR, Trooskin, SZ, Doshi, PJ, Greenwald, L, Mode, CJ. Time to laparotomy for intra-abdominal bleeding from trauma does affect survival for delays up to 90 minutes. J Trauma 2002;52(3):420–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Rudolph, SS, Sørensen, MK, Svane, C, Hesselfeldt, R, Steinmetz, J. Effect of prehospital ultrasound on clinical outcomes of non-trauma patients--a systematic review. Resuscitation 2014;85(1):2130. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.09.012.Google ScholarPubMed
von Vopelius-Feldt, J, Benger, J. Who does what in prehospital critical care? An analysis of competencies of paramedics, critical care paramedics and prehospital physicians. Emerg Med J 2014;31(12):1009–13.Google ScholarPubMed
O'Dochartaigh, D, Douma, M, Alexiu, C, Ryan, S, MacKenzie, M. Utilization criteria for prehospital ultrasound in a Canadian critical care helicopter emergency medical service: determining who might benefit. Prehosp Disaster Med 2017;32(5):536–40.Google Scholar
Yates, JG, Baylous, D. Aeromedical ultrasound: the evaluation of point-of-care ultrasound during helicopter transport. Air Med J 2017;36(3):110–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Press, GM, Miller, SK, Hassan, IA, et al. Prospective evaluation of prehospital trauma ultrasound during aeromedical transport. J Emerg Med 2014;47(6):638–45.Google ScholarPubMed
Ziesmann, MT, Park, J, Unger, BJ, Kirkpatrick, AW, et al. Validation of the quality of ultrasound imaging and competence (QUICk) score as an objective assessment tool for the FAST examination. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2015;78(5):1008–13.Google ScholarPubMed
Heegaard, W, Hildebrandt, D, Spear, D, Chason, K, Nelson, B, Ho, J. Prehospital ultrasound by paramedics: results of field trial. Acad Emerg Med 2010;17(6):624–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Boniface, KS, Shokoohi, H, Smith, ER, Scantlebury, K. Tele-ultrasound and paramedics: real-time remote physician guidance of the Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma examination. Am J Emerg Med 2011;29(5):477–81.Google ScholarPubMed
Kim, CH, Shin, SD, Song, KJ, Park, CB. Diagnostic accuracy of focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) examinations performed by emergency medical technicians. Prehosp Emerg Care 2012;16(3):400–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Comparison of scan quality by operator

Supplementary material: File

Waterman et al. supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download Waterman et al. supplementary material(File)
File 87 KB
You have Access

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Quality of abdominal ultrasound image acquisition by novice practitioners following a minimal training session on healthy volunteers
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Quality of abdominal ultrasound image acquisition by novice practitioners following a minimal training session on healthy volunteers
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Quality of abdominal ultrasound image acquisition by novice practitioners following a minimal training session on healthy volunteers
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *