Clinical trial NCT06824675: Point-of-care Ultrasound Teledidactic Teaching for Prehospital Emergency Personnel
Official title: Point-of-care Ultrasound Teledidactic Teaching for Prehospital Emergency Personnel
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
Phase: NA
Conditions: eFast
Fate
Education, Medical
Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS)
Keywords: EMS Personell
Education
Medical Education
critical care
emergency
Ultrasound
POCUS
Anaesthesiology
emergency medical technician
point-of-care ultrasound
Lead sponsor: Medical University of Vienna
Sponsor class: OTHER
Collaborators: name: Semmelweis University Budapest
name: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute Digital Health and Patient Safety
First posted: 2025-02-13
Enrollment: 100
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: yes
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Intervention model description: The study consists of five phases. Participants begin by watching an introductory video and completing an electronic questionnaire to provide baseline information, including prior POCUS experience and openness to new methods. They are then randomly assigned to either the teledidactic (intervention) or in-person (control) training group.

Next, all participants complete a standardized e-learning course covering POCUS basics and the eFAST protocol. This is followed by a supervised hands-on training session conducted either in person or remotely, based on group assignment.

Participants are then evaluated during a simulated emergency case. They also complete a follow-up questionnaire on their cognitive load and learning experience.

Finally, expert reviewers analyze video recordings of the assessments using the OSAUS scoring system to evaluate systematic examination skills and image interpretation accuracy
Primary purpose: OTHER

Brief summary: The goal of this clinical trial is to compare two methods of teaching emergency medical service (EMS) providers how to use point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) to quickly assess critical conditions like internal bleedings. The main questions it aims to answer are:

Is teledidactic training as effective as face-to-face training in teaching POCUS skills? What are the participants' experiences, cognitive load, and feedback regarding these training methods? Researchers will compare remote, online hands-on training (teledidactic training) to traditional, face-to-face hands-on training (in-person training) to see if remote training is equally effective.

Participants will:

Be EMS providers from Austria and Hungary, aged 18 years or older, with no extensive prior experience in POCUS.

Be randomly assigned to either the tele-didactic or in-person training group (50 participants per group).

Undergo training sessions designed to teach POCUS skills and provide feedback on their learning experience.

This study is part of the European Union-funded Digi4Care project, which aims to promote digitalization in healthcare. It is significant because, if remote training proves effective, it could provide high-quality education to EMS providers in rural or underserved areas, ensuring they have the necessary skills to assess and respond to critical conditions.

Detailed description: POCUS is a valuable tool that helps EMS providers quickly assess critical conditions like internal bleeding or heart problems, which can be crucial in emergency situations. However, many rural and remote areas with limited infrastructure face challenges, such as restricted access to hands-on training and specialized instructors. This study aims to compare two educational approaches - teledidactic versus traditional in-person hands-on training - for teaching EMS providers the skills necessary to perform POCUS based on the eFAST protocol.

In this study participants will be devided into the intervention group (teledidactic training) and the control group (in-person training)

1. Teledidactic Training: This involves remote, online hands-on training.
2. In-Person Training: This is the traditional face-to-face hands-on training. Participants in this study are EMS providers from Austria and Hungary who are at least 18 years old and do not have extensive prior experience with POCUS. A total of 100 participants will be randomly assigned to either the teledidactic or in-person training group.

The primary objective of the study is to compare the effectiveness of teledidactic versus in-person training in teaching POCUS skills. Secondary objectives include evaluating participants' experiences with these teaching methods, their cognitive load during the learning process, and their feedback on the training methods.

This study is important because it seeks to determine if remote training can be as effective as in-person training. If successful, this could help provide high-quality education to EMS providers in rural or underserved areas, ensuring they have the necessary skills to quickly assess and respond to critical conditions. The study is part of the European Union-funded Digi4Care project, which aims to promote digitalization in healthcare.

All collected data will be securely stored and anonymized to protect participants' privacy. The study follows ethical guidelines to ensure participants' rights and safety. Participation is voluntary, and participants can withdraw at any time.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* EMT-Intermediate/Advanced in the Austrian or Hungarian EMS
* ≥18 years

Exclusion Criteria:

* Experienced POCUS examiners, defined as \>20 real-life or simulated POCUS examinations following the eFAST protocol
* inadequate knowledge of English

Primary outcomes:
measure: Difference in the performance of an eFAST POCUS examination between randomized groups
timeFrame: evaluation within 3 weeks after study completion
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Difference in OSAUS score for each objective between randomized groups
timeFrame: evaluation within 3 weeks after study completion
measure: Difference in time taken to demonstrate all views as required by the assessment checklist
timeFrame: evaluation within 3 weeks after study completion
measure: Difference in cognitive load between randomized groups
timeFrame: evaluation within 3 weeks after study completion
measure: Difference in learning outcomes and training design using TEI between randomized groups
timeFrame: evaluation within 3 weeks after study completion
measure: Evaluation of participants' feedback on specific questions
timeFrame: evaluation within 3 weeks after study completion
measure: Technical issues/usability
timeFrame: evaluation within 3 weeks after study completion
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Vienna
country: Austria
facility: Medical University of Vienna
Study officials:
References: