Teaching Medical Students Rapid Ultrasound for shock and hypotension (RUSH): learning outcomes and clinical performance in a proof-of-concept study.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a critical diagnostic tool in various medical settings, yet its instruction in medical education is inconsistent. The Rapid Ultrasound for Shock and Hypotension (RUSH) protocol is a comprehensive diagnostic tool, but its complexity poses challenges for teaching and learning. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a single-day training in RUSH for medical students by assessing their performance in clinical scenarios. METHODS: In this prospective single-center observational proof-of-concept study, 16 medical students from Saarland University Medical Center underwent a single-day training in RUSH, followed by evaluations in clinical settings and on a high-fidelity simulator. Performance was assessed using a standardized scoring tool and time to complete the RUSH exam. Knowledge gain was measured with pre- and post-training written exams, and diagnostic performance was evaluated with an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). RESULTS: Students demonstrated high performance in RUSH exam views across patients (median performance: 85-87%) and improved scanning times, although not statistically significant. They performed better on simulators than on live patients. Written exam scores significantly improved post-training, suggesting a gain in theoretical knowledge. However, more than a third of students could not complete the RUSH exam within five minutes on live patients. CONCLUSIONS: Single-day RUSH training improved medical students' theoretical knowledge and simulator performance but translating these skills to clinical settings proved challenging. The findings suggest that while short-term training can be beneficial, it may not suffice for clinical proficiency. This study underscores the need for structured and possibly longitudinal training programs to ensure skill retention and clinical applicability.

Prehospital Electrocardiogram Transmission and Prehospital Scene Time: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: Telemedical transmission of prehospital electrocardiograms (ECGs) to a target clinic may improve clinical workflows and speed of intervention. However, whether ECG transmission delays prehospital workflows remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to clarify whether ECG transmission prolongs prehospital scene time in patients diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: We retrospectively included all patients diagnosed with ACS by prehospital emergency physicians from July 2016 to June 2019 at a single academic center. The primary endpoint was the effect of ECG transmission on prehospital scene time. The secondary endpoints were the effects of ECG diagnosis on prehospital scene time and quality of care. Multivariable regression was used to account for patients' age, physician specialty, completion of specialty training, and whether emergencies occurred throughout the day or night shifts as potential confounders. Results: A total of 1,106 cases were included, of which 154 ECG transmissions were performed. ECG transmission prolonged prehospital scene time by an average of 3 min: adjusted regression coefficient [95% confidence interval (95% CI)]: 3.24 (1.7-4.8), p < 0.001. Prehospital treatment time was not influenced by prehospital ECG-based diagnosis (ST-elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] vs. non-ST-elevation ACS [NSTE-ACS]): adjusted regression coefficient (95% CI): 0.7 (-1.3 to 2.7), p = 0.490. Emergency physicians adhered to local standard operating procedures in 739 of 1,007 (73%) patients diagnosed with NSTE-ACS and 93 of 99 (94%) patients diagnosed with STEMI. A STEMI diagnosis compared with NSTE-ACS was associated with five times higher odds of adhering to standard operating procedures (odds ratio [95% CI]: 5.6 [2.7-14.6], p < 0.001). Conclusion: The observed delay of ∼3 min in the prehospital scene time by ECG transmission is clinically irrelevant. For patients prehospitally diagnosed with NSTE-ACS who do not meet STEMI criteria, adherence to standard operating procedures seems unjustifiably low and should be improved.

Preparing for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: creation and implementation of new recommendations.

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in 2020, departments of anesthesiology worldwide have encountered new and unique challenges. In this short communication, we present and assess our recommendations for orotracheal intubation, a frequent high-risk procedure. We will point out that interdisciplinary cooperation with "non-patient care" departments like the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene tremendously helped us in creating this and other new, clear standards for anesthesiological procedures. Moreover, to reliably implement our newly created measures, we distributed incisive posters and organized comprehensive training sessions. Eventually, we summarize and analyze the occurring problems of our suggestions for intubation during their realization.

[Comparison of the preclinical quality of analgesia of emergency physicians and paramedics based on trauma patients]. / Vergleich der präklinischen Analgesiequalität von Notarzt und Notfallsanitäter anhand traumatologischer Patienten.

BACKGROUND: Adequate prehospital pain management is a critical component of emergency medical services. With the introduction of the paramedic profession and the Paramedics Act in Germany, the basis for more extensive competencies of paramedics was established. In many emergency medical service areas it is thus possible for paramedics to perform analgesia and sedation with esketamine/midazolam according to pre-established instructions and/or standard operating procedures. This study assessed the quality of analgesia administered to trauma patients by paramedics compared to emergency medical service physicians. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included trauma patients who received prehospital administration of analgesia by either emergency medical service physicians or paramedics and were subsequently admitted to the central emergency department of the Saarland University Hospital. A standardized data collection form was used to collect information from the emergency service protocol and initial emergency department assessment. The evaluation employed descriptive statistical methods and a total of 207 completed records were analyzed. RESULTS: Both professional groups achieved significant pain reduction and fulfilled the criteria for effective pain management (pain reduction: emergency medical service physicians 5.5 ± 2.0/paramedic 4.4 ± 2.1, p < 0.001). Emergency medical service physicians, however, more frequently attained a higher reduction in numerical rating scale scores and administered oxygen. Notable differences were observed in the range of medications used and the dosages. CONCLUSION: This study could show that prehospital analgesia is comparable between emergency medical service physicians and paramedics in terms of effectiveness for trauma patients if the indications are correctly set, while observing pre-existing instructions. With their competencies paramedics are able to perform an effective and safe analgesic treatment within the framework of preformulated procedural instructions, which can be equal to that of an emergency medical service physician.