Quality of YouTube videos on focused assessment with sonography in trauma protocol

Busra  BILDIK; Erinc  BARCIN; Cemre  AKDOGAN; Lutfi Anıl  GUDEK; Besir  CAYLI; Seref Emre  ATIS; Bora  CEKMEN

doi:10.18502/fem.v9i1.18068

Busra BILDIK Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Karabuk University, Karabuk, Turkey.
Erinc BARCIN Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Karabuk University, Karabuk, Turkey.
Cemre AKDOGAN Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Karabuk University, Karabuk, Turkey.
Lutfi Anıl GUDEK Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Karabuk University, Karabuk, Turkey.
Besir CAYLI Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Karabuk University, Karabuk, Turkey.
Seref Emre ATIS Department of Emergency Medicine, Mälarsjukhuset, Eskilstuna, Sweden
Bora CEKMEN Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Karabuk University, Karabuk, Turkey.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/fem.v9i1.18068

Keywords: Emergency Medicine, Internet, Quality Control, Social Media, Training Technics, Ultrasonography

Abstract

Objective:

The Focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) protocol is one of the most critical steps in trauma assessment in current emergency department practices. The contribution of video-based learning to medical education is increasingly recognized. This study aims to evaluate the quality of videos related to e-FAST ultrasonography as well as the factors influencing video quality.

Methods:

The study encompassed conducting searches on YouTube using the keywords "FAST," "E-FAST," and "Trauma USG," followed by a comprehensive analysis of the retrieved videos. The quality of these videos was evaluated using JAMA, GQS, and DISCERN scores.

Results:

The study included 93 videos. The mean mDISCERN score was 3.1 (0.9), the mean JAMA score was 2.1 (0.7), and the mean GQS score was 3.4 (1.0). Sixty-five (69.9%) of the videos were recorded by individuals, and 60 (64.5%) used only the US image in the video. The median video length was 639 seconds (s) (range: 250–1305 s), median number of comments was 0 (range 0–4), median upload date (days) was 1675 (range: 976-2750), number of views was 2250 (range: 467-14187), and number of likes was 28 (range: 8-162). The mean mDISCERN and JAMA scores of institutional videos were 3.2 (0.9) and 2.2 (0.7), respectively, and the mean mDISCERN and JAMA scores of individual videos were 2.7 (0.8) and 1.9 (0.7) (P values = 0.008 and 0.018, respectively). The mean GQS score of institutional videos was 3.5 (0.1), and the mean GQS score of individual videos was 3.3 (0.8) (P=0.325). The median number of comments in individual videos was 4.0 (range: 0.0–12.5), while the median number of comments in institutional videos was 0.0 (range: 0.0–2.0; P= 0.011). There is a significant difference in the number of likes (P=0.043). No significant difference was found in video length, date, and number of views between individual and institutional videos (P values = 0.236, 0.974, and 0.255, respectively).

Conclusion:

Upon reviewing e-FAST/FAST protocol videos on social networks, it becomes apparent that institutional videos exhibit better quality. Institutional videos are not only more target-oriented, but they also provide reliable information and are optimized for timeliness.