Pocus — POCUS a eFAST pri hemoragickom šoku —môže to záchranár bez lekára?

POCUS and eFAST in Hemorrhagic Shock: Can a Paramedic Do It Without a Physician?

Zdieľajte
Journal Club · JC-02

POCUS and eFAST in Hemorrhagic Shock —
can a paramedic do it without a physician?

What the latest studies say about the diagnostic accuracy of paramedics performing prehospital ultrasound — and how realistic implementation is within the Slovak EMS system

Martin Semanco, EMT-P ◦ Paramedic, RZP Leopoldov ◦ Journal Club · JC-02 ◦ Topic: POCUS · Trauma · Hemorrhagic Shock

Prehospital POCUS is ceasing to be the exclusive domain of physician-staffed crews. A series of studies from 2024–2026 maps the real-world results of paramedics trained in the eFAST and RUSH protocols — and the results are surprisingly consistent.

PICO — quick overview

[P] Population: Adult patients with blunt thoraco-abdominal trauma or suspected hemorrhagic shock in the prehospital setting

[I] Intervention: eFAST/POCUS performed by a paramedic (without a physician) after a structured training program

[C] Comparison: Clinical decision-making without POCUS, or the reference standard (hospital CT/sonography)

[O] Outcome: Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity/specificity), change in clinical decision, time to definitive care

Key studies and what they found

Scand J Trauma · 2026
Paramedic POCUS after structured training (Germany)
91.7%
eFAST sensitivity for hemoperitoneum and pleural effusion. Specificity 100%. 21 paramedics, 169 examinations, 24-month follow-up.
Prehosp Emerg Care · 2024
HEMS retrospective series — eFAST changes clinical care
2.7%
Cases where POCUS directly changed management (655 patients, 258 examined). Predominantly: preventing unnecessary thoracostomy and triggering transfusion in unclear shock.
Prehosp Emerg Care · 2025
Rural pilot program — paramedic interpretation accuracy
100%
eFAST interpretation accuracy in simulated scenarios (average exam time 2.6 min). Note: controlled setting, not real-world field conditions.
Scand J Trauma 2025 — narrative review

False-negative eFAST results are a real risk particularly in the early post-traumatic phase, before sufficient free fluid has accumulated. Repeat examination (serial FAST) reduces false negativity by up to 50%. Retroperitoneal hemorrhage remains a blind spot — eFAST standardly does not detect it.

e²FAST — a new concept (Cureus 2025)

Integrating inferior vena cava diameter measurement (IVC-US) into the standard eFAST protocol shows promising results for rapid recognition of hemorrhagic shock. IVC collapsibility correlates with hypovolemia. This is so far a narrative review — a large prospective RCT is lacking.

Real-world impact vs. statistical significance

The figure of 2.7% of cases with a management change may seem modest at first glance. In the context of trauma, however, it means: for every ~37 patients examined, 1 receives different — potentially life-saving — management. Given the high prevalence of severe trauma in HEMS practice, this is a clinically relevant figure.

A paramedic’s diagnostic accuracy with POCUS

91.7%
eFAST sensitivity (hemoperitoneum, pleural effusion)
100%
eFAST specificity (Scand J Trauma 2026)
100%
eFAST sensitivity (rural pilot, 2025 simulation)
70%
Specificity of abdominal ultrasound outside the eFAST protocol
2.6 min
Average time for a complete eFAST examination
13 hrs
Minimum training to reach basic competency

Methodological strength of the evidence

[! Predominantly retrospective studies] [! Small samples (n = 21–258)] [! No large RCT for non-physician POCUS] [! Simulation ≠ real-world field] [✓ Consistent results]

— Publication bias: Programs where POCUS didn’t work are less likely to be published. The available literature may overestimate real-world accuracy in routine practice.

— Patient selection: HEMS studies include more severe cases — results can’t be transferred to ground-based basic-level (RZP) crews without correction.

— Training variability: From a 13-hour course to long-term multimodal programs. Minimum training needed for reliable field accuracy isn’t defined.

— Time pressure of the field: Laboratory conditions don’t capture noise, vibration, movement, stress, and cooperation with other crew members.

Applicability under Slovak conditions

ParameterStatus in SlovakiaImpact on POCUS implementation
RZP competenciesSlovak Act No. 579/2004 Coll. — POCUS is not explicitly included in RZP competencies A legislative gray zone — an RZP paramedic has no clear legal authorization for diagnostic ultrasound
RLP / physician competenciesAn RLP crew physician has competency for diagnostic ultrasound POCUS is immediately implementable on RLP — depends only on device availability and physician training
Ambulance equipmentA handheld ultrasound device is not standard on Slovak RZP ambulances A financial barrier — a handheld device costs €2,000–4,000; not part of standard equipment under the decree
Paramedic trainingPOCUS isn’t part of the Bachelor’s/Master’s emergency medicine curriculum at Slovak universities! Interest is growing, but no organized training program for paramedics exists in Slovakia
Call time frameA 2.6-minute exam is realistic only with more time on scene! NOT compatible with a scoop-and-run strategy in polytrauma
Retroperitoneal hemorrhageA frequent cause of severe hemorrhagic shock after pelvic trauma eFAST won’t catch this — the limitation applies regardless of the operator’s qualification
Key insight from the 2024 HEMS study
The most valuable benefit of POCUS in trauma wasn’t confirming hemorrhage, but preventing unnecessary needle thoracostomy in normovolemic tachycardic patients — where clinical signs were misleading. For the paramedic, this is a fundamental argument: POCUS protects not only against undertreatment, but also against iatrogenic harm.
The evidence speaks: a paramedic with eFAST training can examine reliably. The system, so far, has given the paramedic neither the device nor the legislative framework.
The diagnostic accuracy of paramedics trained in eFAST is consistently high — sensitivity 91–100%. The systemic response in Slovakia, however, remains negative so far: competency, equipment, and training infrastructure are all lacking. Retroperitoneal hemorrhage and early FAST false negativity are limitations no training will remove — they need to be known and communicated at patient handoff.
Sources and references
  1. Paramedic POCUS — a retrospective cohort study, 21 paramedics, 169 examinations. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine. 2026.
  2. Smith B, et al. Prehospital Extended FAST Exams Improve Clinical Decision Making by Helicopter EMS Crews. Prehospital Emergency Care. 2024;28(5):727–734.
  3. Rural pilot program — paramedic interpretation accuracy (New Hampshire). Prehospital Emergency Care. 2025.
  4. ACEP EM Ultrasound Section. Advancing Prehospital Care with POCUS. May 2025.
  5. Narrative review — evolving role of POCUS in prehospital care. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine. 2025.
  6. Alsalmi F, et al. e²FAST: Integrating Inferior Vena Cava Ultrasound Into the eFAST. Cureus. 2025;17(12).
  7. Slovak Act No. 579/2004 Coll. on Emergency Medical Services — competencies of the basic-level paramedic (RZP) in Slovakia.
Martin Semanco, EMT-P

Paramedic with more than 15 years of experience in prehospital emergency care, RZP Leopoldov. Administrator and editor of zachranarjecool.eu.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *