ABSTRACT
Introduction: Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) has become a common practice in prehospital care over the last 10 years. There is lack of literature on its use and governance structure in United Kingdom (UK) prehospital care services. We aimed to survey the use, governance of prehospital POCUS among UK prehospital services and perceptions of clinicians and services regarding its utility and barriers to its implementation. Methods: Four electronic questionnaire surveys were delivered to UK helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) & clinicians, ambulance and community emergency medicine (CEM) services between 1st of April and 31st of July 2021 investigating current use, governance structure for POCUS and perception about its benefits and barriers. Invitations were sent via email to medical directors or research leads of services and using social media. Survey links remained live for two months each. Results: Overall, 90%, 62% and 60% of UK HEMS, ambulance and CEM services respectively, responded to surveys. Most of the services used prehospital POCUS, however only two HEMS organisations fulfilled the Royal College of Radiology governance criteria for POCUS. The most commonly performed POCUS modality was echo in cardiac arrest. Majority of clinicians judged POCUS to be beneficial and the common perceived benefit was promotion of enhanced and effective clinical care. Major barriers to its implementation included a lack of formal governance, limited literature supporting its use and difficulties in performing POCUS in prehospital environment. Conclusion: This survey demonstrates that prehospital POCUS is being provided by a majority of the prehospital care services and clinicians have found it beneficial in providing enhanced clinical care to their patients. However, the barriers to its implementation are relative lack of governance structure and supportive literature.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: As an adjunct to physical examination, ultrasound is a potentially attractive option for diagnosing pneumothoraces in the pre-hospital and retrieval environment - and could confer a benefit to patient safety. However, the published evidence supporting non-physicians use of ultrasound in this setting is limited. AIM: We aimed to establish if Advanced Retrieval Practitioners (non-physicians) could acquire ultrasound views of the lungs and interpret them with sufficient quality to diagnose pneumothorax in the pre-hospital and retrieval environment when compared to expert review. METHOD: The study consisted of an observational trial from April 2017 to April 2018. Twelve (12) patients bilateral lung ultrasound images (24 images) were randomly selected from 87 patients assessed using Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) by three Advanced Retrieval Practitioners in the Pre-hospital and Retrieval environment. Two expert reviewers' evaluated these images to determine ARPs ability to acquire diagnostic quality images and interpret them correctly. CXR results of patients in whom lung ultrasound was undertaken were recorded as the reference standard investigation. RESULTS: Within the 22 images considered adequate by the Advanced Retrieval Practitioners, 19 (86.4%, one-tailed McNemar test p = 0.125) were considered adequate on expert review. Of the 19 images mutually considered as adequate, both the Advanced Retrieval Practitioners and the reviewers identified two pneumothoraces which were subsequently confirmed on chest x-ray (Sensitivity 100% and Specificity 100% in technically adequate images). One pneumothorax was detected on CXR in a patient with inadequate ultrasound images. Advanced Retrieval Practitioners were therefore able to both obtain adequate images and correctly diagnose pneumothorax in the pre-hospital environment with 66.6% sensitivity (95%CI 66.6-100%) and 100% specificity (95%CI 81.0-100%) compared to expert review. CONCLUSION: Advanced Retrieval Practitioners (non-physicians) can obtain diagnostic views of the lungs of sufficient quality to diagnose the presence, or particularly the absence, of pneumothorax in the pre-hospital and retrieval environment. Although Advanced Retrieval Practitioners were less accurate than the expert reviewers at interpreting the quality of the ultrasound images, the result was not statistically significant, despite the ARPs possibly having been at a methodological disadvantage.
