MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407136183 · doi:10.1186/s13049-025-01340-3

Implementation of prehospital point-of-care ultrasound using a novel continuous feedback approach in a UK helicopter emergency medical service

2025· article· en· W4407136183 on OpenAlexaff
Salman Bin Naeem, Shadman Aziz, Thomas Hirst, Johannes Ströbel, Jamin M. Mulvey, Alexander Smith, Kevin Cheng, M PALMER, Jonas Schlautmann, Daniel Nevin

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePneumothoraxFocused assessment with sonography for traumaPericardial effusionEmergency ultrasoundClinical governanceEmergency medicineEmergency medical servicesMedical emergencyRadiologyUltrasoundSurgeryHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There has been increased use of prehospital point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) by helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) in recent years. Lack of governance structure and evidence of benefit have been described as major barriers to its implementation. This paper describes a novel approach to implementation of prehospital PoCUS and clinical governance framework in a UK HEMS. METHODS: A retrospective database review was undertaken at London's Air Ambulance (LAA) from 1st September 2021 to 31st March 2023. All patients who had PoCUS examination were included. Scans were archived in a cloud-based server and reviewed weekly by expert clinicians. They were graded in adequacy, agreement between reviewer and clinician was recorded and fed back to the clinicians allowing continuous feedback learning. In-hospital diagnosis was sought for patients having the full Pump, Pleura and Pouring blood (PPPB) protocol. Cohen's Kappa (ƙ) was calculated for inter-rater reliability. Sensitivity and specificity analysis was performed using 2 × 2 tables. RESULTS: LAA attended 3,068 missions. Our reviewers identified 701 PoCUS scanning encounters and 628 were included in the final analysis. Clinicians performed 420 scans for pneumothorax, 308 for free fluid and 305 pericardial effusions respectively. Majority of the population were male (85%) who sustained traumatic (93.5%) thoracic injuries (65%). Paramedics performed 29% of the scans. Reviewers deemed 83% of the scans of adequate quality. Inter-rater reliability between clinicians and reviewers was 0.6 for pericardial effusion, 0.67 for pneumothorax and 0.71 for free fluid respectively. A full PPPB protocol was performed in 52 patients out of which 46 were included. The sensitivity and specificity of PPPB protocol for diagnosis life-threatening injuries was 0.5 and 0.9 respectively. CONCLUSION: Introduction of prehospital PoCUS in a HEM service utilizing high quality training, user-friendly workflow and image archiving system, robust governance framework and continuous feedback may be feasible allowing high quality ultrasound examinations. The bespoke PPPB protocol in prehospital may improve diagnosis of life-threatening injuries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency MedicineSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207