1% (95% CI 1.9, 6.3). Utilization rates were 2.8% (95% CI 0.9, 4.7) and 3.7% (95% CI 0, 7.6) for ground transport and helicopter air transport services respectively. Of 212 respondents that are not using ultrasound, 46 (21.7%, 95% CI 17, 26.4) are considering ultrasound implementation while 166 (78.3%, 95% CI 73.6, 83) are not considering ultrasound implementation. The most commonly cited current and projected applications are FAST and assessment of PEA arrest which are used by 87.5% (95% CI 64.7, 100) of EMS services with ultrasound. Table 1 Characteristics

of EMS services Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical Among the 8 EMS providers using ultrasound who commented on the level of training of their providers, 4 (50%) are paramedics, 5 (62.5%) are physicians, 1 (12.5%) are rescue medics, and 1 (12.5%) are

paramedics or registered nurses with additional training in critical care. Of the 8 EMS services that commented on their ultrasound usage, 7 (87.5%) use it for FAST, 7 (87.5%) assess PEA arrest, 6 (75%) examine for cardiac tamponade, 5 (62.5%) use it Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical to detect AAA, 4 (50%) examine for pneumothorax, 2 (25%) use it for vascular access, 2 (25%) assess volume status through JVP or IVC diameter, and 1 (12.5%) use it to identify fractures. Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical None of the services that responded used ultrasound to confirm intraosseous line placement, endotracheal tube placement, identification of pulmonary edema, or used telemetry of ultrasound images to the emergency department. Among 5 EMS medical directors using ultrasound who commented on the perceived benefits, all 5 (100%) stated that it improves selleck kinase inhibitor patient management in the field and patient triage, 4 (80%) stated may change disposition upon arrival to definitive care and 3 (60%) stated that it helps expedite care of critically ill patients. EMS services currently using ultrasound are more Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical likely to have physicians as their highest trained prehospital providers when compared to the survey group as a whole (p<0.001). Characteristics that were not different between EMS services using ultrasound and the whole survey group included: funding model (public vs private); urban or rural population; size of population

Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical base; type of transport (air vs ground); or transport time. All respondents using ultrasound were from the USA, however, this was not a statistically significant association with ultrasound use (p=0.724) as the majority of survey respondents were American. The cost of equipment and training are the most significant barriers to implementation of ultrasound with 89.4% (95% CI 85.7-93.1) and 73.7% many (95% CI 68.4, 79) of EMS medical directors identifying these barriers respectively. The perceived barriers to implementation of prehospital ultrasound for EMS services that are not using ultrasound are shown in Table 2. Table 2 The barriers EMS Medical directors perceive to implementing prehospital ultrasound n=198 Most EMS medical directors would like data on utility of prehospital ultrasound prior to implementation. 71.8% (95% CI 65.9, 77.