Ultrasound is a standard adjunct to the initial evaluation of injured patients in the emergency department. We sought to evaluate the ability of prehospital, in-flight thoracic ultrasound to identify pneumothorax. Non-physician aeromedical providers were trained to perform and interpret thoracic ultrasound. All adult trauma patients and adult medical patients requiring endotracheal intubation underwent both in-flight and emergency department ultrasound evaluations. Findings were documented independently and reviewed to ensure quality and accuracy. Results were compared to chest X-ray and computed tomography (CT). One hundred forty-nine patients (136 trauma/13 medical) met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 44.4 (18-94) years; 69 % were male. Mean injury severity score was 17.68 (1-75), and mean chest injury score was 2.93 (0-6) in the injured group. Twenty pneumothoraces and one mainstem intubation were identified. Sixteen pneumothoraces were correctly identified in the field. A mainstem intubation was misinterpreted. When compared to chest CT (n = 116), prehospital ultrasound had a sensitivity of 68 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 46-85 %), a specificity of 96 % (95 % CI 90-98 %), and an overall accuracy of 91 % (95 % CI 85-95 %). In comparison, emergency department (ED) ultrasound had a sensitivity of 84 % (95 % CI 62-94 %), specificity of 98 % (95 % CI 93-99 %), and an accuracy of 96 % (95 % CI 90-98 %). The unique characteristics of the aeromedical environment render the auditory element of a reliable physical exam impractical. Thoracic ultrasonography should be utilized to augment the diagnostic capabilities of prehospital aeromedical providers.

The ACS practice model significantly enhances provider productivity and job satisfaction when compared with trauma alone. Fears of a productivity impact to the nontrauma general surgeon were not realized.

Many patients undergo computed tomography (CT) scan before transfer to definitive care. Despite this, studies are often repeated on arrival to the trauma center. We evaluated a policy to provide formal in-house interpretation of images performed at outside hospitals. A 3-month retrospective analysis was performed. Two groups were compared. Patients in the in-house interpretation (IHI) group underwent in-house interpretation of outside images. Those images not meeting criteria were placed in the comparison group without in-house radiologic interpretation. Demographics, CT scan data, billing and productivity loss, and extrapolated cancer risk reduction were analyzed. There were no significant differences in demographic or injury data. Fewer total CT scans were performed in the IHI group (223 vs 320, P = 0.04). The IHI group underwent fewer repeated CT scans (25 vs 62, P = 0.02; odds ratio [OR], 0.53). Fewer patients were exposed to repeat CT scans (17 vs 32; OR, 0.48). Total hospital billings decreased by $188,285 ($4,592/patient) in the IHI group. Uncaptured work relative value units totaled 152.19 (3.71/patient) in the IHI group. Radiation exposure decreased by 8 per cent. Use of outside hospital imaging as the definitive evaluation of injured patients is safe and results in an overall decrease in radiation exposure and healthcare cost.

No abstract