ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025
Soundwaves of innovation: a qualitative exploration of POCUS in Australasian ambulance and retrieval services.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPoint-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) represents an advancement in diagnostic ability and procedural success for paramedics in out-of-hospital settings. Despite its potential to rapidly identify life-threatening conditions and improve patient management, the adoption of POCUS faces multiple challenges, including the need for standardized training, credentialing, and robust governance. This study aims to evaluate the current use of POCUS by paramedics in Australasia, focusing on training, credentialing, governance, and auditing systems. It also explores the main barriers and facilitators that influence its effective integration and operational effectiveness in out-of-hospital environments.
methodsThis qualitative study utilized reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's methodology to capture deep insights into POCUS usage. Participants included medical directors and clinical leads from jurisdictional ambulance services and retrieval services across Australasia. They were selected via purposive sampling and interviewed using semi-structured techniques, which allowed for an in-depth exploration of their experiences and perceptions related to POCUS.
resultsFour major themes were identified: (1) Pillars of POCUS: highlighting the necessity of robust governance, education, and infrastructure for effective POCUS programs; (2) System Buy-In: emphasizing the need for medical and institutional support to maximize the benefits of POCUS; (3) Culture Change in Paramedicine: discussing the shifts required in paramedic practices and attitudes towards adopting new diagnostic technologies; and (4) What's the Worth: evaluating the cost-effectiveness and value of POCUS in the face of budget constraints and its potential to improve patient outcomes.
conclusionsThe study underscores significant disparities in POCUS training and a lack of standardized governance across Australasian services, which are major impediments to its adoption. Additionally, financial considerations and the perceived value of POCUS impact its acceptance and expansion. To fully leverage the capabilities of POCUS in enhancing paramedic practice, development of comprehensive, standardized frameworks addressing these challenges is essential. Future efforts should focus on demonstrating the economic and clinical benefits of POCUS to support its widespread adoption in emergency medical services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.