PURPOSE: Frontline healthcare professionals are well positioned to improve the systems in which they work. Educational curricula, however, have not always equipped healthcare professionals with the skills or knowledge to implement and evaluate improvements. It is important to have a robust and standardized framework in order to evaluate the impact of such education in terms of improvement, both within and across European countries. The results of such evaluations will enhance the further development and delivery of healthcare improvement science (HIS) education. We aimed to describe the development and piloting of a framework for prospectively evaluating the impact of HIS education and learning. METHODS: The evaluation framework was designed collaboratively and piloted in 7 European countries following a qualitative methodology. The present study used mixed methods to gather data from students and educators. The framework took the Kirkpatrick model of evaluation as a theoretical reference. RESULTS: The framework was found to be feasible and acceptable for use across differing European higher education contexts according to the pilot study and the participants' consensus. It can be used effectively to evaluate and develop HIS education across European higher education institutions. CONCLUSION: We offer a new evaluation framework to capture the impact of HIS education. The implementation of this tool has the potential to facilitate the continuous development of HIS education.
Consensus ; Curriculum ; Delivery of Health Care* ; Education* ; Europe* ; Health Personnel ; Humans ; Learning ; Pilot Projects ; Prospective Studies

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (US) is a proven diagnostic imaging tool in the emergency department (ED). Modern US devices are now more compact, affordable and portable, which has led to increased usage in austere environments. However, studies supporting the use of US in the prehospital setting are limited. The primary outcome of this pilot study was to determine if paramedics could perform cardiac ultrasound in the field and obtain images that were adequate for interpretation. A secondary outcome was whether paramedics could correctly identify cardiac activity or the lack thereof in cardiac arrest patients. METHODS: We performed a prospective educational study using a convenience sample of professional paramedics without ultrasound experience. Eligible paramedics participated in a 3-hour session on point-of-care US. The paramedics then used US during emergency calls and saved the scans for possible cardiac complaints including: chest pain, dyspnea, loss of consciousness, trauma, or cardiac arrest. RESULTS: Four paramedics from two distinct fire stations enrolled a total of 19 unique patients, of whom 17 were deemed adequate for clinical decision making (89％, 95％CI 67％–99％). Paramedics accurately recorded 17 cases of cardiac activity (100％, 95％CI 84％–100％) and 2 cases of cardiac standstill (100％, 95％CI 22％–100％). CONCLUSION: Our pilot study suggests that with minimal training, paramedics can use US to obtain cardiac images that are adequate for interpretation and diagnose cardiac standstill. Further large-scale clinical trials are needed to determine if prehospital US can be used to guide care for patients with cardiac complaints.