Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38831372›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2024

Implementation of a point-of-care ultrasound archiving system and governance framework in a UK physician-paramedic staffed helicopter emergency medical service.

Shadman Aziz, Christopher T Edmunds, Jon Barratt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Ultrasound as a tool in prehospital settings: a scoping review.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Soundwaves of innovation: a qualitative exploration of POCUS in Australasian ambulance and retrieval services.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Shadman AzizDepartment of Research, Audit, Innovation, and Development (RAID), East Anglian Air Ambulance, Norwich, UK. shadman.aziz@eaaa.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8596-4703
Christopher T EdmundsDepartment of Research, Audit, Innovation, and Development (RAID), East Anglian Air Ambulance, Norwich, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9754-6971
Jon BarrattDepartment of Research, Audit, Innovation, and Development (RAID), East Anglian Air Ambulance, Norwich, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7660-7613

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere has been a rapid expansion in the use of point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) by emergency medical services (EMS). However, less than a third of UK EMS utilise imaging archiving for POCUS, and fewer review saved images as part of a clinical governance structure. This paper describes the implementation of a novel image archiving system and a robust clinical governance framework in our UK physician-paramedic staffed helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS).

methodsA retrospective database review was conducted of all patients attended by East Anglian Air Ambulance (EAAA) between the introduction of a new POCUS device and image archiving system on 1 December 2020 to 31 January 2024. All patients with recorded POCUS examinations were included. Images from POCUS examinations at EAAA are archived on a cloud-based server, and retrospectively reviewed within 24 h by an EAAA POCUS supervisor. Image quality is graded using a 5-point Likert-type scale, agreement between reviewer and clinician is recorded and feedback is provided on scanning technique. T-tests were used to assess the difference in image quality between physicians and paramedics. Inter-rater reliability between reviewers and clinicians was assessed using Cohen's kappa (κ).

resultsDuring the study period, 5913 patients were attended by EAAA. Of these, 1097 patients had POCUS images recorded. The prevalence of POCUS during the study period was 18.6%. 1061 patient examinations underwent quality assurance (96.7%). The most common POCUS examination was echocardiography (60%), predominantly during cardiac arrest. The primary scanning clinician was a paramedic in 25.4% of POCUS examinations. Across all examination types; image quality was not significantly different between physicians and paramedics and agreement between reviewers and clinicians was strong (κ > 0.85).

conclusionsIn this service evaluation study, we have described outcomes following the introduction of a new POCUS device, image archiving system and governance framework in our HEMS. Paramedics were the primary scanning clinician in a quarter of scans, with image quality comparable to physicians. Almost all scans underwent quality assurance and inter-rater reliability was strong between clinicians and reviewers. Further research is required to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS and to demonstrate the effect of utilising prehospital POCUS to refine diagnosis on clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Air AmbulancesEmergency Medical ServicesPoint-of-Care SystemsUltrasonographyAllied Health PersonnelClinical GovernanceHumansParamedicsPhysiciansRetrospective StudiesUnited KingdomGovernanceHEMSImage archivingPoint-of-care ultrasoundPrehospital

Identifiers

PMID38831372
PMCPMC11145775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.