IntroductionPre-hospital focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) has been effectively used to improve patient care in multiple mass casualty events throughout the world. Although requisite FAST knowledge may now be learned remotely by disaster response team members, traditional live instructor and model hands-on FAST skills training remains logistically challenging. The objective of this pilot study was to compare the effectiveness of a novel portable ultrasound (US) simulator with traditional FAST skills training for a deployed mixed provider disaster response team.MethodsWe randomized participants into one of three training groups stratified by provider role: Group A. Traditional Skills Training, Group B. US Simulator Skills Training, and Group C. Traditional Skills Training Plus US Simulator Skills Training. After skills training, we measured participants’ FAST image acquisition and interpretation skills using a standardized direct observation tool (SDOT) with healthy models and review of FAST patient images. Pre- and post-course US and FAST knowledge were also assessed using a previously validated multiple-choice evaluation. We used the ANOVA procedure to determine the statistical significance of differences between the means of each group’s skills scores. Paired sample t-tests were used to determine the statistical significance of pre- and post-course mean knowledge scores within groups.ResultsWe enrolled 36 participants, 12 randomized to each training group. Randomization resulted in similar distribution of participants between training groups with respect to provider role, age, sex, and prior US training. For the FAST SDOT image acquisition and interpretation mean skills scores, there was no statistically significant difference between training groups. For US and FAST mean knowledge scores, there was a statistically significant improvement between pre- and post-course scores within each group, but again there was not a statistically significant difference between training groups.ConclusionThis pilot study of a deployed mixed-provider disaster response team suggests that a novel portable US simulator may provide equivalent skills training in comparison to traditional live instructor and model training. Further studies with a larger sample size and other measures of short- and long-term clinical performance are warranted.

IntroductionRecent research has investigated the use of ultrasound (US) for confirming endotracheal tube (ETT) placement with varying techniques, accuracies, and challenges. Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of a novel, simplified, four-step (4S) technique.MethodsWe conducted a blinded, randomized trial of the 4S technique utilizing an adult human cadaver model. ETT placement was randomized to tracheal or esophageal location. Three US experts and 45 emergency medicine residents (EMR) performed a total of 150 scans. The primary outcome was the overall sensitivity and specificity of both experts and EMRs to detect location of ETT placement. Secondary outcomes included a priori subgroup comparison of experts and EMRs for thin and obese cadavers, time to detection, and level of operator confidence.ResultsExperts had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI = 72% to 100%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI = 77% to 100%) on thin, and a sensitivity of 93% (95% CI = 66% to 100%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI = 75% to 100%) on obese cadavers. EMRs had a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI = 69% to 98%) and of specificity 96% (95% CI = 76% to 100%) on thin, and a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI = 82% to 100%) specificity of 48% (95% CI = 27% to 69%) on obese cadavers. The overall mean time to detection was 17 seconds (95% CI = 13 seconds to 20 seconds, range: 2 to 63 seconds) for US experts and 29 seconds (95% CI = 25 seconds to 33 seconds; range: 6 to 120 seconds) for EMRs. There was a statistically significant decrease in the specificity of this technique on obese cadavers when comparing the EMRs and experts, as well as an increased overall time to detection among the EMRs.ConclusionThe simplified 4S technique was accurate and rapid for US experts. Among novices, the 4S technique was accurate in thin, but appears less accurate in obese cadavers. Further studies will determine optimal teaching time and accuracy in emergency department patients.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract