BACKGROUND: Remotely guided ultrasound (US) examinations carried out by nonmedical personnel (novices) have been shown to produce clinically useful examinations, at least in small pilot studies. Comparison of the quality of such exams to those carried out by trained medical professionals
is lacking in the literature. This study compared the objective quality and clinical utility of cardiac and pulmonary US examinations carried out by novices and trained physicians.METHODS: Cardiac and pulmonary US examinations were carried out by novices under remote guidance by
an US expert and independently by US trained physicians. Exams were blindly evaluated by US experts for both a task-based objective score as well as a subjective assessment of clinical utility.RESULTS: Participating in the study were 16 novices and 9 physicians. Novices took longer
to complete the US exams (median 641.5 s vs. 256 s). For the objective component, novices scored higher in exams evaluating for pneumothorax (100% vs. 87.5%). For the subjective component, novices more often obtained clinically useful exams in the assessment of cardiac regional wall motion
abnormalities (56.3% vs. 11.1%). No other comparisons yielded statistically significant differences between the two groups. Both groups had generally higher scores for pulmonary examinations compared to cardiac. There was variability in the quality of exams carried out by novices depending
on their expert guide.CONCLUSION: Remotely guided novices are able to carry out cardiac and pulmonary US examinations with similar, if not better, technical proficiency and clinical utility as US trained physicians, though they take longer to do so.Dufurrena Q, Ullah KI,
Taub E, Leszczuk C, Ahmad S. Feasibility and clinical implications of remotely guided ultrasound examinations. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2020; 91(7):592–596.
