We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Handheld ultrasound (US) devices have become increasingly popular since the early 2000s due to their portability and affordability compared to conventional devices. The Rapid Ultrasonography for Shock and Hypotension (RUSH) protocol, introduced in 2009, has shown promising accuracy rates when performed with handheld devices. However, there are limited data on the accuracy of such examinations performed in a moving ambulance. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and accuracy of the RUSH protocol performed by paramedics using handheld US devices in a moving ambulance.
Objectives:
The study aimed to examine the performability of the RUSH protocol with handheld US devices in a moving ambulance and to evaluate the accuracy of diagnostic views obtained within an appropriate time frame.
Methods:
A prospective study was conducted with paramedics who underwent theoretical and practical training in the RUSH protocol. The participants performed the protocol using a handheld US device in both stationary and moving ambulances. Various cardiac and abdominal views were obtained and evaluated for accuracy. The duration of the protocol performance was recorded for each participant.
Results:
Nine paramedics completed the study, with 18 performances each in both stationary and moving ambulance groups. The accuracy of diagnostic views obtained during the RUSH protocol did not significantly differ between the stationary and moving groups. However, the duration of protocol performance was significantly shorter in the moving group compared to the stationary group.
Conclusion:
Paramedics demonstrated the ability to perform the RUSH protocol effectively using handheld US devices in both stationary and moving ambulances following standard theoretical and practical training. The findings suggest that ambulance movement does not significantly affect the accuracy of diagnostic views obtained during the protocol. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to validate these findings and explore the potential benefits of prehospital US in dynamic environments.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.