Prehospital portable ultrasound for safe and accurate prehospital needle thoracostomy: a pilot educational study.

BACKGROUND: Simulated needle thoracostomy (NT) using ultrasound may reduce potential injury, increase accuracy, and be as rapid to perform as the traditional landmark technique following a brief educational session. Our objective was to determine if the use of an educational session demonstrating the use of handheld ultrasound to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) staff to facilitate NT was both feasible, and an effective way of increasing the safety and efficacy of this procedure for rural EMS providers. METHODS: A pre/post-educational intervention on a convenience sample of rural North American EMS paramedics and nurses. Measurement of location and estimated depth of placement of needle thoracostomy with traditional landmark technique was completed and then repeated using handheld ultrasound following a training session on thoracic ultrasound and correct placement of NT. RESULTS: A total of 30 EMS practitioners participated. Seven were female (23.3%). There was a higher frequency of dangerous structures underlying the chosen location with the landmark technique 9/60 (15%) compared to the ultrasound technique 1/60 (1.7%) (p = 0.08). Mean time-to-site-selection for the landmark technique was shorter than the ultrasound technique at 10.7 s (range 3.35-45 s) vs. 19.9 s (range 7.8-50 s), respectively (p < 0.001). There was a lower proportion of correct location selection for the landmark technique 40/60 (66.7%) when compared to the ultrasound technique 51/60 (85%) (p = 0.019). With ultrasound, there was less variance between the estimated and measured depth of the pleural space with a mean difference of 0.033 cm (range 0-0.5 cm) when ultrasound was used as compared to a mean difference of 1.0375 cm (range 0-6 cm) for the landmark technique (95% CI for the difference 0.73-1.27 cm; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Teaching ultrasound NT was feasible in our cohort. While time-to-site-selection for ultrasound-guided NT took longer than the landmark technique, it increased safe and accurate simulated NT placement with fewer identified potential iatrogenic injuries.

A comparison of handheld ultrasound versus traditional ultrasound for acquisition of RUSH views in healthy volunteers.

Few studies evaluate the use of handheld ultrasound devices for point-of-care ultrasonography in the emergency department. We hypothesized that image acquisition time and image quality are similar between a handheld device and a traditional device. We compared these 2 types of devices in healthy, non-pregnant adults with using a crossover non-inferiority design while acquiring Rapid Ultrasound for Shock and Hypotension (RUSH) view. We excluded those with a history of surgical intervention or known abnormality to the lungs, abdomen, or pelvis. Images were compiled into a de-identified video clip reviewed for image quality by 2 blinded reviewers. Cohen's Kappa was used to determine interrater agreement. Disagreements were adjudicated by an independent physician. Imaging time was compared using a paired Student's t test. Of 59 screened participants, 9 were excluded. Most subjects (N = 30, 60%) were female with a mean age of 39 (Range: 19-67) years. The median time to complete the RUSH exam did not differ (handheld 249.4, interquartile range 33.5 seconds); traditional 251.4, interquartile range 66.3 seconds); [P = 0.81]). Agreement between ultrasound reviewers was good (agreement 83%; k = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88). Images were determined to be of adequate quality for interpretation in 41/50 (82%) and 43/50 (86%) in the handheld and traditional devices, respectively (P = 0.786). Neither time to image acquisition nor image quality differed between the handheld and traditional devices. The handheld device may be an alternative for use in RUSH exams.

Risk factors for unplanned ICU admission after emergency department holding orders.

STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Emergency department (ED) holding orders are used in an effort to streamline patient flow. Little research exists on the safety of this practice. Here, we report on prevalence and risk factors for upgrade of medical admissions to ICU for whom holding orders were written. METHODS: Retrospective review of holding order admissions through our ED for years 2013-2018. Pregnancy, prisoner, pediatric, surgical, and ICU admissions were excluded, as were transfers from other hospitals. Risk factors of interest included vital signs, physiologic data, laboratory markers, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), Quick SOFA (qSOFA), modified early warning (MEWS) scores, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Primary outcome was ICU transfer within 24 hours of admission. Analysis was completed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2018, the ED had 203,374 visits. Approximately 20% (N = 54,915) were admitted, 23% of whom had holding orders (N = 12,680). A minority of those with a holding order were transferred to the ICU within 24 hours (N = 79; 0.62%). Those transferred to ICU had increased heart and respiratory rate, P/F ratio, and increased oxygen need. They also had higher MEWS, quick SOFA (qSOFA), and SOFA scores. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated a significant association between ICU admission and FiO2 (odds ratio [OR] 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-1.74), MEWS (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.14-1.52), SOFA Score (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.05-1.35), and gastrointestinal (OR 3.25; 95% CI: 1.50-7.03) or other combined diagnosis (OR 2.19; CI: 1.07-4.48) (P = 0.0017). CONCLUSION: Holding orders are used for >20% of all admissions and <1% of those admissions required transfer to ICU within 24 hours.