We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items 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.
The Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) exam is a rapid ultrasound test to identify evidence of hemorrhage within the abdomen. Few studies examine the accuracy of paramedic performed FAST examinations. The duration of an ultrasound training program remains controversial. This study's purpose was to assess the accuracy of paramedic FAST exam interpretation following a one hour didactic training session.
Methods
The interpretation of paramedic performed FAST exams was compared to the interpretation of physician performed FAST examinations on a mannequin model containing 300ml of free fluid following a one hour didactic training course. Results were compared using the Chi-square test. Differences in accuracy rate were deemed significant if p < 0.05.
Results
Fourteen critical care flight paramedics and four emergency physicians were voluntarily recruited. The critical care paramedics were mostly ultrasound-naive whereas the emergency physicians all had ultrasound training. The correct interpretation of FAST scans was comparable between the two groups with accuracy of 85.6% and 87.5% (∆1.79 95%CI -33.85 to 21.82, p = 0.90) for paramedics and emergency physicians respectively.
Conclusions
This study determined that critical care paramedics were able to use ultrasound to detect free fluid on a simulated mannequin model and interpret the FAST exam with a similar accuracy as experienced emergency physicians following a one hour training course. This suggests the potential use of prehospital ultrasound to aid in the triage and transport decisions of trauma patients while limiting the financial and logistical burden of ultrasound training.
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.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.