Observational studyScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2026
Real world evaluation of a distance-supervised ultrasound training programme in a physician-staffed emergency medical service: a prospective, descriptive implementation study.
Observational study in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2026. 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
backgroundIntroducing point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) into prehospital emergencies is challenging. This study evaluated a blended POCUS training programme with remote supervision on clinical use and competence in a physician-staffed Emergency Medical Service (EMS).
methodsA prospective observational study considering the RE-AIM framework was conducted over six months in a regional physician-staffed EMS. Board-certified emergency physicians received training in focused protocols for respiratory failure, shock, cardiac arrest, and trauma, combining simulation with real-patient scanning under asynchronous expert supervision. Cases with and without POCUS were compared. Stored clips were reviewed by blinded experts for technical adequacy and interpretation accuracy. Interobserver agreement was measured using Cohen's κ and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsAmong 476 calls, ultrasound-trained physicians attended 375 (78.8%). POCUS was performed in 70 cases (18.7% with a trained physician; 38.3% when the primary indication was present). POCUS use was mainly for respiratory distress (47%) and shock (31%), with low trauma use (~ 6%). Use was reduced during overnight shifts (p = 0.0049). Scene time did not differ between POCUS and non-POCUS cases (21.5 vs 20.2 min, p = 0.64). Approximately 40% of scans met all technical quality criteria. Interpretation accuracy was high-experts agreed with trainees in ~ 80% of cases (κ = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65-0.92); ultrasound diagnoses were confirmed in 85.7% (ICC = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.75-0.96). POCUS patients had higher clinical severity scores (34% vs 17% with p < 0.005). In some of these cases, episodes of cardiac arrest were documented.
conclusionsBlended training with remote mentorship enabled safe POCUS integration into high-acuity prehospital care without delaying scene time. Ongoing practice and mentorship are recommended to improve image acquisition and sustain skills.
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.