Point-of-care Ultrasound Teledidactic Teaching for Prehospital Emergency Personnel (POCUS TT)

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.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Education, Medical; Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS); Fate; eFast
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: Teledidactic Training; Other: In-Person Hands-on Training

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.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 90
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• Austria
  • Vienna, Austria, 1070
    • Medical University of Vienna

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: Adult; Older Adult
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Description

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

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Other
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Single

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Other: Teledidactic Training; Remote, online hands-on training	Other: Teledidactic Training; Participants will take part in a tele-didactic training session, matching the duration of the control group's training. This workshop will cover the same content as the control group's session, but instead of in-person instruction, teaching experts will deliver the training remotely using telemedicine software.
Other: In-Person Hands-on Training; Traditional face-to-face hands on-training	Other: In-Person Hands-on Training; Participants will attend a face-to-face, hands-on workshop led by experts to learn the eFAST protocol.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Difference in the performance of an eFAST POCUS examination between randomized groups	The primary outcome measure is the difference in the total Objective Structured Assessment of Ultrasound Skill (OSAUS) score between the participants' of the two groups. Possible assessment scores range from 7 to 37 points, with higher scores indicating better performance.	evaluation within 3 weeks after study completion

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Difference in OSAUS score for each objective between randomized groups	The evaluation of different objectives within the two intervention groups using the respective OSAUS score for each individual objective. Objectives: indication for the examination; applied knowledge of ultrasound equipment; image optimization; systematic examination, interpretation of images, documentation of examination, medical decision making.	evaluation within 3 weeks after study completion
Difference in time taken to demonstrate all views as required by the assessment checklist	Evaluation of the time taken to demonstrate all required views listed on the checklist. Views: Right Upper Quadrant (Subphrenic space, right costodiaphragmatic recess, hepatorenal space, liver, right kidney); Left Upper Quadrant (Subphrenic space, left costodiaphragmatic recess, splenorenal recess, spleen, left kidney); Pelvic view (rectouterine such in females or rectovesical such in males); Cardiac View subcostal (4-chamber view); Lungs (left and right) (pleural sliding including M-Mode image, Presence or absence of B-Lines)	evaluation within 3 weeks after study completion
Difference in cognitive load between randomized groups	Assessment of the cognitive load using the NASA Task load index for overall cognitive load and for each individual objective (mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, performance, effort, frustration)	evaluation within 3 weeks after study completion
Difference in learning outcomes and training design using TEI between randomized groups	Compare learning outcomes and training design between randomized groups using the Training Evaluation Inventory (TEI). Learning outcomes include subjective fun, perceived usefulness, difficulty, knowledge growth, and attitudes toward the training. Training design elements such as problem-based learning, activation of prior knowledge, demonstration, application, and integration will also be assessed. These aspects will be measured with a 45-item inventory using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from "I do not agree" to "I agree very much," providing insights into the effectiveness of the training methods.	evaluation within 3 weeks after study completion
Technical issues/usability	Assessment whether participants in the intervention group encountered issues with the software or hardware used for the teledidactic training. Participants will indicate "yes" or "no" and, if they experienced issues, provide free-text explanations.	evaluation within 3 weeks after study completion
Evaluation of participants' feedback on specific questions	Evaluation of participants' feedback on their learning experience using specific questions. Participants will rate, on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), whether the e-learning course provided adequate knowledge for the subsequent hands-on training. Additionally, they will assess their confidence in performing and interpreting the eFAST protocol. For the intervention group only, participants will also indicate whether they would have preferred in-person training instead of the teledidactic and whether they found the software/hardware easy to use.	evaluation within 3 weeks after study completion

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Medical University of Vienna
• Collaborators: Semmelweis University Budapest; Ludwig Boltzmann Institute Digital Health and Patient Safety

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): February 23, 2025
• Primary Completion (Actual): May 8, 2025
• Study Completion (Actual): May 8, 2025

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: February 7, 2025
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: February 7, 2025
• First Posted (Actual): February 13, 2025

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Estimated): September 26, 2025
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: September 24, 2025
• Last Verified: February 1, 2025

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: Ultrasound; critical care; emergency; Education; Medical Education; Anaesthesiology; POCUS; point-of-care ultrasound; emergency medical technician; EMS Personell
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Pathologic Processes; Disease Attributes; Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms; Emergencies
• Other Study ID Numbers: 2107/2024

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No
• product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.: No