## 1 Introduction  
In 2016 nearly 146 million patients sought treatment in emergency departments (ED's) in the United States. More than 10.5 million (7.2%) of these patients presented with injuries to the extremities, and 4.6 million (3.2%) of these had open wounds of the extremities [1]. Broken glass-induced injuries account for 13% of patients with traumatic wounds [2]. While no published articles explicitly enumerated the total number of broken glass-induced injuries in the US, the authors estimated the prevalence of these injuries by applying the reported rates (4.6 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\)\(\times\) 13% \(\approx\) 600,000 injuries per year). Of course, this represents an approximation because the authors employed rates derived from different sources. While this number only represents a small percentage of the total number of annual ED visits, it still is a significant number of cases fraught with potential liability and the possibility of attracting malpractice suits. [PERSON] et al. [3] reviewed closed malpractice claims in Massachusetts from 1988 to 1994 and reported that of all cases involving retained FBs, 53% were glass fragments. Only 31% of patients underwent X-ray imaging as part of their wound evaluation: for those who were imaged, 5 of 6 glass FBs (83%) remained undiscovered and undiagnosed. Among physicians who were sued, 60% of those who failed to take initial radiographs lost their cases, either in court or by settlement; furthermore, indemnity payouts were significantly increased for cases in which the physician failed to image the patient [3]. When treating a patient with a wound that may contain FBs, such as broken glass, standard emergency medicine practice requires that the practitioner evaluate the patient by taking a detailed history, performing a physical examination, and obtaining imaging. Most practitioners and facilities will get conventional radiographs to screen for glass FBs. Radiopaque objects, such as metal pieces, are easier to detect than more radiolucent objects, such as glass, which can often be missed [4; 5; 6]. The accuracy of detection of glass FBs by standard X-ray is generally not dependent on the type or chemical composition of the glass. In a study of 430 patients by [PERSON] et al. [7], window and bottle glass account for 30% and 25% of all cases, respectively. Although these glass types are relatively low density (in comparison to lead-oxide glasses), these glass FBs can be detected by conventional radiographs. The probability of detection is more dependent on the size of the FBs. The likelihood of detecting glass FBs with a more than 2 mm diameter approaches 99% using conventional X-rays. For smaller glass FBs that are \(>\)1 mm and \(>\)0.5 mm, the likelihood of detection decreases to 84% and 61%, respectively [8]. Unfortunately, many glass FBs in wounds are smaller, resulting in a'missed foreign body' rate of up to 50% after a physical examination and radiographs increasing the probability of wound infection, complications, poor clinical outcomes, and legal liability [3]. Most wounds treated in the ED that contain glass FBs are hand injuries, where infection, complication, and poor clinical outcomes have more significant consequences for the patient whose hands are vital to their occupational and personal functioning [9]. The complex bone structure of the hand further complicates accurate X-ray imaging of these very small pieces of glass. Point of Care testing (POCT) is increasingly becoming desirable and trenchant in multiple clinical settings, including EDs, Urgent Care Centers, and various austere medical settings. POCT increases the efficiency of patient care in these settings, decreasing patient waiting times and increasing patient satisfaction while improving clinicians' ability to make diagnoses and provide treatment without requiring the input of off-site specialists. The quality of standard ultrasound machines used in most emergency departments (non-hand-held devices) is generally superior to available hand-held devices.