Background: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is an essential tool in emergency medicine (EM). We aimed to investigate the current status and perception of POCUS use in emergency medical centers in Korea. Methods: A cross-sectional, nationwide survey was conducted using a mobile survey of physicians at emergency medical centers in Korea. The first message was sent on November 27, 2020, and the second message was sent on December 3, 2020 to the non-responders.The questionnaire comprised 6 categories and 24 questionnaires on demographics, current practice, education, perception, and barriers to the use of POCUS. Results: A total of 467 physicians participated in the survey (a response rate of 32% among 1,458 target physicians), of which 43% were residents and 57% were EM specialists. Most of the respondents (96%) answered that they use POCUS, of which 89% reported using it at least once a week. The most frequently used types of POCUS were focused assessment with sonography for trauma (68%) and echocardiography (66%). Musculoskeletal, male genital, and pediatric scans were rarely performed tests but ranked as of the scans physicians most wanted to learn. About 73% of the respondents received ultrasound education, and 41% received ultrasound education at their own institutions. Nevertheless, educationrelated barriers are still the biggest deterrent to POCUS use (60%). In addition, multivariate multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that the greater the number of ultrasound devices and the total number of physicians in the emergency center, the more likely they were to use POCUS every day. Conclusion This study found that most physicians currently working in emergency medical centers in Korea more frequently perform various types of ultrasound scans compared to those 10 years prior. To further promote the use of POCUS, it is important to have an appropriate number of ultrasound devices and physicians in the emergency center along with systematic POCUS education.

Background: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is an essential tool in emergency medicine (EM). We aimed to investigate the current status and perception of POCUS use in emergency medical centers in Korea. Methods: A cross-sectional, nationwide survey was conducted using a mobile survey of physicians at emergency medical centers in Korea. The first message was sent on November 27, 2020, and the second message was sent on December 3, 2020 to the non-responders.The questionnaire comprised 6 categories and 24 questionnaires on demographics, current practice, education, perception, and barriers to the use of POCUS. Results: A total of 467 physicians participated in the survey (a response rate of 32% among 1,458 target physicians), of which 43% were residents and 57% were EM specialists. Most of the respondents (96%) answered that they use POCUS, of which 89% reported using it at least once a week. The most frequently used types of POCUS were focused assessment with sonography for trauma (68%) and echocardiography (66%). Musculoskeletal, male genital, and pediatric scans were rarely performed tests but ranked as of the scans physicians most wanted to learn. About 73% of the respondents received ultrasound education, and 41% received ultrasound education at their own institutions. Nevertheless, educationrelated barriers are still the biggest deterrent to POCUS use (60%). In addition, multivariate multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that the greater the number of ultrasound devices and the total number of physicians in the emergency center, the more likely they were to use POCUS every day. Conclusion This study found that most physicians currently working in emergency medical centers in Korea more frequently perform various types of ultrasound scans compared to those 10 years prior. To further promote the use of POCUS, it is important to have an appropriate number of ultrasound devices and physicians in the emergency center along with systematic POCUS education.

Background: Ear-loop-type Korean Filter 94 masks (KF94 masks, equivalent to the N95 and FFP2) are broadly used in health care settings in Korea for the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Methods: A prospective randomized open-label study was designed to identify differences in the fitting performance between mask wearing methods in three different types of KF94 mask with ear loops between January to March 2021. General-fitting involved wearing an earloop-type KF94 mask, and tight-fitting involved wearing a mask aided by a clip connecting the ear loops. Each of the 30 participants wore three types of masks according to a randomly assigned order in both methods and performed a total of six quantitative fit tests (QNFTs) according to the occupational safety and health administration protocol. Results: All fit factors (FFs) measured by the QNFT were significantly higher for tight-fitting method with the clip in all KF94 masks (P < 0.001). However, the total FFs were very low, with a median (interquartile range) of 6 (3–23) and 29 (9–116) for general-fitting and tight-fitting, respectively. When wearing tightly, the horizontal 3-fold type mask with adjustable ear-loop length had the highest FF, with a median of 125, and the QNFT pass rate (FF ≥ 100) increased significantly from 4 (13%) to 18 (60%). Conclusion Even with sufficient filter efficiency, ear-loop-type-KF94 masks do not provide adequate protection. However, in relatively low-risk environments, wearing a face-seal adjustable KF94 mask and tight wearing with a clip can improve respiratory protection for healthcare workers.

Background: Ear-loop-type Korean Filter 94 masks (KF94 masks, equivalent to the N95 and FFP2) are broadly used in health care settings in Korea for the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Methods: A prospective randomized open-label study was designed to identify differences in the fitting performance between mask wearing methods in three different types of KF94 mask with ear loops between January to March 2021. General-fitting involved wearing an earloop-type KF94 mask, and tight-fitting involved wearing a mask aided by a clip connecting the ear loops. Each of the 30 participants wore three types of masks according to a randomly assigned order in both methods and performed a total of six quantitative fit tests (QNFTs) according to the occupational safety and health administration protocol. Results: All fit factors (FFs) measured by the QNFT were significantly higher for tight-fitting method with the clip in all KF94 masks (P < 0.001). However, the total FFs were very low, with a median (interquartile range) of 6 (3–23) and 29 (9–116) for general-fitting and tight-fitting, respectively. When wearing tightly, the horizontal 3-fold type mask with adjustable ear-loop length had the highest FF, with a median of 125, and the QNFT pass rate (FF ≥ 100) increased significantly from 4 (13%) to 18 (60%). Conclusion Even with sufficient filter efficiency, ear-loop-type-KF94 masks do not provide adequate protection. However, in relatively low-risk environments, wearing a face-seal adjustable KF94 mask and tight wearing with a clip can improve respiratory protection for healthcare workers.