Skip to content

FAST Examination During Emergency Practice

Knowledge, Attitude and Practice About Focused Assessment With Sonography in Trauma Among Paramedics. Randomized Crossover Manikin Trial

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02289885
Acronym
FAST
Enrollment
100
Registered
2014-11-13
Start date
2014-11-30
Completion date
2014-12-31
Last updated
2014-11-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Trauma, Ultrasonography

Keywords

trauma, examination, knowledge, paramedic

Brief summary

The study evaluates the knowledge, attitude and practice about Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma among emergency medicine practitioners in Poland.

Interventions

DEVICESonoScape

Ultrasonography device

Sponsors

International Institute of Rescue Research and Education
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Paramedics currently practicing in a Polish emergency department units and emergency medical services * Age ≥ 18 years

Exclusion criteria

* Inability to participate in all aspects of the study prior to study begin

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Tests of Knowledge of the FAST Examination1 dayknowledge-based measures used to evaluate participants' knowledge of FAST-examination-related concepts (Survey)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
FAST Performance Test1 dayThe performance test required participants to conduct a FAST examination on two model patients (one normal, one ascites positive). No help or feedback was given to the participants.
Window acquisition time1 dayIdentification of FAST Window Quadrants and Diagnostic Interpretation of FAST Windows. The window acquisition time was measured with a stopwatch and represented the period between first contact of the probe with the model patient's body and when the participant said stop to indicate an adequate window or the participant's judgment that he or she could not acquire the window.
Window quality1 dayFor each acquired window, an expert evaluated the quality of the window. The window was rated as excellent, fair, poor, or other. Other captured situations where the window acquired was nondiagnostic. Window quality was dichotomized into two categories, excellent or not excellent, and subsequent analyses examined the number of participants that acquired excellent windows by quadrant (perihepatic space (also called Morison's pouch or the hepatorenal recess), perisplenic space, pericardium, and the pelvis and suprapubic quadrant) and patient type (normal, positive).
Diagnostic accuracy1 dayFor each acquired window, the participant rendered a diagnosis of that window. An expert evaluated the quality of the diagnosis. The diagnosis was rated as correct, incorrect, or other. Other captured situations where the window acquired was nondiagnostic. For analysis purposes, diagnostic accuracy was dichotomized into two categories, correct or not correct, and subsequent analyses examined the number of participants that interpreted the window correctly by quadrant (perihepatic space (also called Morison's pouch or the hepatorenal recess), perisplenic space, pericardium, and the pelvis and suprapubic quadrant) and patient type (normal, positive).

Countries

Poland

Contacts

Primary ContactLukasz Szarpak
lukasz.szarpak@gmail.com+48500186225

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026