Prehospital use of activated charcoal: A pilot study

Activated charcoal (AC) is most effective when administered soon after the ingestion of certain substances. Delays are recognized to occur at times in the administration of AC after arrival of poisoned patients in the emergency department (ED). In addition, it has been recognized that these delays may be avoided if AC administration is begun in selected patients by paramedics while en route to the ED. We present a pilot study evaluating the administration of AC to poisoned patients in the ambulance prior to arrival in the ED. We performed a retrospective review of Emergency Medical System (EMS) run sheets and ED records of poisoned patients during a 6-month period from two area hospitals. Cases were identified that met criteria for the prehospital administration of AC. Cases were divided into two groups: those who received prehospital AC, and those who did not. Groups were compared for ambulance transport time, time from first paramedic contact to AC administration, and whether AC was tolerated by the patient. A total of 14 patients received prehospital AC (group 1). This group was compared to 22 cases that would have qualified under County protocol to receive prehospital AC, but for whatever reason did not (group 2). Group 2 patients all received AC after arriving in the ED. Average ambulance transport times did not statistically differ among groups. The average time from first encounter with paramedics to administration of AC was 5.0 minutes when AC administration was given in the ambulance as compared to 51.4 minutes when delayed until arrival in the ED. Tolerance was similar among the groups. The time to initiate AC administration may be significantly shortened when begun by prehospital personnel. All EMS should consider including AC in protocols addressing the prehospital management of certain poisoned patients.     

Accuracy of Paramedic Broselow Tape Use in the Prehospital Setting

Introduction. Previous literature has documented that prehospital 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) decreases the time to reperfusion in patients with an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Objective. To compare time to ECG, time to angioplasty suite (laboratory), andtime to reperfusion in emergency medical services (EMS) STEMI patients, who received care through three different processes. Methods. The setting was a large suburban community teaching hospital with emergency department (ED)-initiated single-page acute myocardial infarction (AMI) team activation for STEMI patients. The population was STEMI patients transported by EMS from January 2003 to October 2005. Not all EMS agencies had prehospital 12-lead ECG capability. Paramedics interpret andverbally report clinical assessment andECG findings via radio. The AMI team is activated at the discretion of the emergency physician 1) before patient arrival to the ED based on EMS assessment, 2) after ED evaluation with EMS ECG, or 3) after ED evaluation andED ECG. Time intervals were calculated from ED arrival. To assess the impact of interventions on performance targets, we also report the proportion of patients who arrived in laboratory within 60 minutes andreperfusion within 90 minutes of arrival. Parametric andnonparametric statistics are used for analysis. Results. During the study period, there were 164 STEMI patients transported by EMS; mean age was 66.1 years, and56% were male. Of these, 93 (56.7%) had an EMS ECG and31 (33%) had AMI team activation before ED arrival. Mean time to laboratory for all patients was 49.8 ± 34.4 minutes andtime to reperfusion was 93.2 +/? 34.5 min. Patients with prearrival activation were transported to laboratory sooner (mean, 24.3 vs. 53. 4 minutes; p < 0.001) andreceived reperfusion sooner than all other patients (mean, 70.4 vs. 96.3 minutes; p = 0.007). More prearrival activation patients met performance targets to laboratory (96.7% vs. 73.7%; p = 0.009) andreperfusion (85.2% vs. 51.0%; p = 0.003). There was no difference in time to laboratory or to reperfusion for patients who received EMS ECG but no prearrival activation compared with those who received EMS transport alone. Conclusions. A minority of patients with EMS ECGs had prearrival AMI team activation. EMS ECGs combined with systems that activate hospital resources, but not EMS ECGs alone, decrease time to laboratory andreperfusion.     

Utilization of Intravenous Catheters by Prehospital Providers during Pediatric Transports

Introduction: Prehospital intravenous (IV) access in children may be difficult and time-consuming. Emergency Medical Service (EMS) protocols often dictate IV placement; however, some IV catheters may not be needed. The scene and transport time associated with attempting IV access in children is unknown. The objective of this study is to examine differences in scene and transport times associated with prehospital IV catheter attempt and utilization patterns of these catheters during pediatric prehospital encounters. Methods: Three non-blinded investigators abstracted EMS and hospital records of children 0–18 years of age transported by EMS to a pediatric emergency department (ED). We compared patients in which prehospital IV access was attempted to those with no documented attempt. Our primary outcome was scene time. Secondary outcomes include utilization of the IV catheter in the prehospital and ED settings and a determination of whether the catheter was indicated based on a priori established criteria (prehospital IV medication administration, hypotension, GCS < 13, and ICU admission). Results: We reviewed 1,138 records, 545 meeting inclusion criteria. IV catheter placement was attempted in 27% (n = 149) with success in 77% (n = 111). There was no difference in the presence of hypotension or median GCS between groups. Mean scene time (12.5 vs. 11.8 minutes) and transport time (16.9 vs. 14.6 minutes) were similar. Prehospital IV medications were given in 38.7% (43/111). One patient received a prehospital IV medication with no alternative route of administration. Among patients with a prehospital IV attempt, 31% (46/149) received IV medications in the ED and 23% (34/396) received IV fluids in the ED. Mean time to use of the IV in the ED was 70 minutes after arrival. Patients with prehospital IV attempt were more likely to receive IV medication within 30 minutes of ED arrival (39.1% vs. 19.0%, p = 0.04). Overall, 34.2% of IV attempts were indicated. Conclusions: Prehospital IV catheter placement in children is not associated with an increase in scene or transport time. Prehospital IV catheters were used in approximately one-third of patients. Further study is needed to determine which children may benefit most from IV access in the prehospital setting.     

F EW E MERGENCY M EDICAL S ERVICES P ATIENTS WITH L OWER-EXTREMITY F RACTURES R ECEIVE P REHOSPITAL A NALGESIA

Previous literature has identified prehospital pain management as an important emergency medical services (EMS) function, and few patients transported by EMS with musculoskeletal injuries receive prehospital analgesia (PA). Objectives. 1) To describe the frequency with which EMS patients with lower-extremity and hip fracture receive prehospital and emergency department (ED) analgesia; 2) to describe EMS and patient factors that may affect administration of PA to these patients; and 3) to describe the time interval between EMS and ED medication administrations. Methods. This was a four-month (April to July 2000) retrospective study of patients with a final hospital diagnosis of hip or lower-extremity fracture who were transported by EMS to a single suburban community hospital. Data including patient demographics, fracture type, EMS response, and treatment characteristics were abstracted from review of EMS and ED records. Patients who had ankle fractures, had multiple traumatic injuries, were under the age of 18 years, or did not have fractures were excluded. Results. One hundred twenty-four patients met inclusion criteria. A basic life support (BLS)-only response was provided to 20 (16.0%). Another 38 (38.4%) received an advanced life support (ALS) response and were triaged to BLS transport. Of all the patients, 22 (18.3%) received PA. Patients who received PA were younger (64.0 vs. 77.3 years, p < 0.001) and more likely to have a lower-extremity fracture other than a hip fracture (31.8% vs. 10.7%, p < 0.004). Of all patients, 113 (91.1%) received ED analgesia. Patients received analgesia from EMS almost 2.0 hours sooner that in the ED (mean 28.4 ± 36 min vs. 146 ± 74 min after EMS scene arrival, p < 0.001). Conclusion. A minority of the study group received PA. Older patients and patients with hip fracture are less likely to receive PA. It is unclear whether current EMS system design may adversely impact administration of PA. Further work is needed to clarify whether patient need or EMS practice patterns result in low rates of PA.     

Time Is Brain: Prehospital Emergency Medical Services Response Times for Suspected Stroke and Effects of Prehospital Interventions

ObjectivesTo compare prehospital time for patients with suspected stroke in Florida with the American Stroke Association (ASA) time benchmarks, and to investigate the effects of dispatch notification and stroke assessment scales on prehospital time.Patients and MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed using data from Florida’s Emergency Medical Services Tracking and Reporting System database. All patients with suspected stroke transported to a treatment center from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018, were analyzed. Time intervals from 911 call to hospital arrival were evaluated and compared with ASA benchmarks.ResultsIn 2018, 11,577 patients with suspected stroke were transported to a hospital (mean age, 71.5±15.7 years; 51.5% women). The median alarm-to-hospital time was 33.98 minutes (27.8 to 41.4), with a total emergency medical services (EMS) time of 32.30 minutes (26.5 to 39.478). The on-scene time was the largest time interval with a median of 13.28 minutes (10.0 to 17.4). Emergency medical services encounters met the ASA benchmarks for time in 58% to 62% of the EMS encounters in Florida (recommended 90%; P<.001). The total EMS time was reduced when a stroke notification was reported by the dispatch center (32.00 minutes vs 32.62 minutes; P=.006) or when a stroke assessment scale was used by the EMS personnel (31.88 minutes vs 32.96 minutes; P=.005).ConclusionThis study reveals a substantial opportunity for improvement in stroke care in Florida. Two prehospital EMS stroke interventions seem to reduce prehospital time for patients with suspected stroke. Adoption of these interventions might improve the stroke systems of care.     

Examining emergency medical services' prehospital transport times for trauma patients during COVID-19

IntroductionLonger prehospital times were associated with increased odds for survival in trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to determine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected emergency medical services (EMS) prehospital times for trauma patients.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study compared trauma patients transported via EMS to six US level I trauma centers admitted 1/1/19–12/31/19 (2019) and 3/16/20–6/30/20 (COVID-19). Outcomes included: total EMS pre-hospital time (dispatch to hospital arrival), injury to dispatch time, response time (dispatch to scene arrival), on-scene time (scene arrival to scene departure), and transportation time (scene departure to hospital arrival). Fisher's exact, chi-squared, or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used, alpha = 0.05. All times are presented as median (IQR) minutes.ResultsThere were 9400 trauma patients transported by EMS: 79% in 2019 and 21% during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients were similar in demographics and transportation mode. Emergency room deaths were also similar between 2019 and COVID-19 [0.6% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.13].There were no differences between 2019 and during COVID-19 for total EMS prehospital time [44 (33, 63) vs. 43 (33, 62), p = 0.12], time from injury to dispatch [16 (6, 55) vs. 16 (7, 77), p = 0.41], response time [7 (5, 12) for both groups, p = 0.27], or on-scene time [16 (12−22) vs. 17 (12,22), p = 0.31]. Compared to 2019, transportation time was significantly shorter during COVID-19 [18 (13, 28) vs. 17 (12, 26), p = 0.01].ConclusionThe median transportation time for trauma patients was marginally significantly shorter during COVID-19; otherwise, EMS prehospital times were not significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Few emergency medical services patients with lower-extremity fractures receive prehospital analgesia

Previous literature has identified prehospital pain management as an important emergency medical services (EMS) function, and few patients transported by EMS with musculoskeletal injuries receive prehospital analgesia (PA). Objectives. 1) To describe the frequency with which EMS patients with lower-extremity and hip fracture receive prehospital and emergency department (ED) analgesia; 2) to describe EMS and patient factors that may affect administration of PA to these patients; and 3) to describe the time interval between EMS and ED medication administrations. Methods. This was a four-month (April to July 2000) retrospective study of patients with a final hospital diagnosis of hip or lower-extremity fracture who were transported by EMS to a single suburban community hospital. Data including patient demographics, fracture type, EMS response, and treatment characteristics were abstracted from review of EMS and ED records. Patients who had ankle fractures, had multiple traumatic injuries, were under the age of 18 years, or did not have fractures were excluded. Results. One hundred twenty-four patients met inclusion criteria. A basic life support (BLS)-only response was provided to 20 (16.0%). Another 38 (38.4%) received an advanced life support (ALS) response and were triaged to BLS transport. Of all the patients, 22 (18.3%) received PA. Patients who received PA were younger (64.0 vs. 77.3 years, p < 0.001) and more likely to have a lower-extremity fracture other than a hip fracture (31.8% vs. 10.7%, p < 0.004). Of all patients, 113 (91.1%) received ED analgesia. Patients received analgesia from EMS almost 2.0 hours sooner that in the ED (mean 28.4 ± 36 min vs. 146 ± 74 min after EMS scene arrival, p < 0.001). Conclusion. A minority of the study group received PA. Older patients and patients with hip fracture are less likely to receive PA. It is unclear whether current EMS system design may adversely impact administration of PA. Further work is needed to clarify whether patient need or EMS practice patterns result in low rates of PA. PREHOSPITAL EMERGENCY CARE 2002;6:406-410     

Contemporary Prehospital Emergency Medical Services Response Times for Suspected Stroke in the United States

Background and Purpose: There are no contemporary national-level data on Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response times for suspected stroke in the United States (US). Because effective stroke treatment is time-dependent, we characterized response times for suspected stroke, and examined whether they met guideline recommendations. Methods: Using the National EMS Information System dataset, we included 911 calls for patients ≥ 18 years with an EMS provider impression of stroke. We examined variation in the total EMS response time by dispatch notification of stroke, age, sex, race, region, time of day, day of the week, as well as the proportion of EMS responses that met guideline recommended response times. Total EMS response time included call center dispatch time (receipt of call by dispatch to EMS being notified), EMS dispatch time (dispatch informing EMS to EMS starts moving), time to scene (EMS starts moving to EMS arrival on scene), time on scene (EMS arrival on scene to EMS leaving scene), and transport time (EMS leaving scene to reaching treatment facility). Results: We identified 184,179 events with primary impressions of stroke (mean age 70.4 ± 16.4 years, 55% male). Median total EMS response time was 36 (IQR 28.7–48.0) minutes. Longer response times were observed for patients aged 65–74 years, of white race, females, and from non-urban areas. Dispatch identification of stroke versus “other” was associated with marginally faster response times (36.0 versus 36.7 minutes, p < 0.01). When compared to recommended guidelines, 78% of EMS responses met dispatch delay of <1 minute, 72% met time to scene of <8 minutes, and 46% met on-scene time of <15 minutes. Conclusions: In the United States, time from receipt of 9-1-1 calls to treatment center arrival takes a median of 36 minutes for stroke patients, an improvement upon previously published times. The fact that 22%–46% of EMS responses did not meet stroke guidelines highlights an opportunity for improvement. Future studies should examine EMS diagnostic accuracy nationally or regionally using outcomes based approaches, as accurate recognition of prehospital strokes is vital in order to improve response times, adhere to guidelines, and ultimately provide timely and effective stroke treatment.     

An Analysis of EMS and ED Detection of Stroke

Background and Purpose: Studies have shown a reduction in time-to-CT and improved process measures when EMS personnel notify the ED of a “stroke alert” from the field. However, there are few data on the accuracy of these EMS stroke alerts. The goal of this study was to examine diagnostic test performance of EMS and ED stroke alerts and related process measures. Methods: The EMS and ED records of all stroke alerts in a large tertiary ED from August 2013–January 2014 were examined and data abstracted by one trained investigator, with data accuracy confirmed by a second investigator for 15% of cases. Stroke alerts called by EMS prior to ED arrival were compared to stroke alerts called by ED physicians and nurses (for walk-in patients, and patients transported by EMS without EMS stroke alerts). Means ± SD, medians, unpaired t-tests (for continuous data), and two-tailed Fisher's exact tests (for categorical data) were used. Results: Of 260 consecutive stroke alerts, 129 were EMS stroke alerts, and 131 were ED stroke alerts (70 called by physicians, 61 by nurses). The mean NIH Stroke Scale was higher in the EMS group (8.1 ± 7.6 vs. 3.0 ± 5.0, p < 0.0001). The positive predictive value of EMS stroke alerts was 0.60 (78/129), alerts by ED nurses was 0.25 (15/61), and alerts by ED physicians was 0.31 (22/70). The PPV for EMS was better than for nurses or physicians (both p < 0.001), and more patients in the EMS group had final diagnoses of stroke (62/129 vs. 24/131, p < 0.001). The positive likelihood ratio was 1.53 for EMS personnel, 0.45 for physicians, and 0.77 for nurses. The mean time to order the CT (8.5 ± 7.1 min vs. 23.1 ± 18.2 min, p < 0.0001) and the mean ED length of stay (248 ± 116 min vs. 283 ± 128 min, p = 0.022) were shorter for the EMS stroke alert group. More EMS stroke alert patients received tPA (16/129 vs. 6/131, p = 0.027). Conclusions: EMS stroke alerts have better diagnostic test performance than stroke alerts by ED staff, likely due to higher NIH Stroke Scale scores (more obvious presentations) and are associated with better process measures. The fairly low PPV suggests room for improvement in prehospital stroke protocols.     

Hypoglycemia Emergencies: Factors Associated with Prehospital Care,Transportation Status,Emergency Department Disposition,and Cost

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to evaluate demographic/clinical characteristics and treatment/transportation decisions by emergency medical services (EMS) for patients with hypoglycemia and link EMS activations to patient disposition, outcomes, and costs to the emergency medical system. This evaluation was to identify potential areas where improvements in prehospital healthcare could be made. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of the National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) registry and three national surveys: Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) from 2013, to examine care of hypoglycemia from the prehospital and the emergency department (ED) perspectives. Results: The study estimated 270,945 hypoglycemia EMS incidents from the NEMSIS registry. Treatments were consistent with national guidelines (i.e., oral glucose, intravenous [IV] dextrose, or glucagon), and patients were more likely to be transported to the ED if the incident was in a rural setting or they had other chief concerns related to the pulmonary or cardiovascular system. Use of IV dextrose decreased the likelihood of transportation. Approximately 43% of patients were not transported from the scene. Data from the NEDS survey estimated 258,831 ED admissions for hypoglycemia, and 41% arrived by ambulance. The median ambulance expenditure was $664?±?98. From the ED, 74% were released. The average ED charge that did not lead to hospital admission was $3106?±?86. Increased odds of overnight admission included infection and acute renal failure. Conclusions: EMS activations for hypoglycemia are sizeable and yet a considerable proportion of patients are not transported to or are discharged from the ED. Seemingly, these events resolved and were not medically complex. It is possible that implementation and appropriate use of EMS treat-and-release protocols along with utilizing programs to educate patients on hypoglycemia risk factors and emergency preparedness could partially reduce the burden of hypoglycemia to the healthcare system.     

P REHOSPITAL R APID-SEQUENCE I NTUBATION

Prehospital pain management has become an important emergency medical services (EMS) patient care issue. Objectives. To describe the frequency of EMS andemergency department (ED) analgesic administration to injured children; to describe factors associated with the administration of analgesia by EMS; andto assess whether children with lower-extremity fractures receive analgesia as frequently as do adults with similar injuries. Methods. This was a retrospective study of children (age < 21 years) who were transported by EMS between January 2000 andJune 2002 andhad a final hospital diagnosis of extremity fractures or burns. Secondarily, children with lower-extremity fractures were compared with a cohort of EMS-transported adults with similar injuries andtransported during the same study period. Receipt of andtime of parenteral analgesia were recorded. Results. Seventy-three children met the inclusion criteria. The mean (range) age of this sample was 12.4 (0.9–21) years, with only four patients aged < 5 years. A majority of the patients were male (49/73, 67.1%) andsustained femur (20/73, 27.4%) or tibia/fibula (26/73, 35.6%) fractures. Few pediatric patients received prehospital analgesia (16/73, 21.9%), while a majority received analgesia in the ED (58/73, 79.4%). Prehospital analgesia was associated with earlier patient treatment than that administered in the ED (22.3 ± 5.9 min vs. 88.3 ± 38.2 min). Comparing children (n = 33) with adults (n = 76) with similar lower-extremity fractures, a small insignificant difference was found in the rate of prehospital analgesia between children andadults (7/33, 21.2%, vs. 20/56, 26.3%). Conclusion. Few pediatric patients receive prehospital analgesia, although most ultimately received ED analgesia. Few factors were identified that could be associated with EMS oligoanalgesia. No difference was found between children andadults in the rates of EMS analgesia.     

Comparison of children receiving emergent sepsis care by mode of arrival

ObjectiveTo determine if differences in patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes exist between children with sepsis who arrive by emergency medical services (EMS) versus their own mode of transport (self-transport).MethodsRetrospective cohort study of patients who presented to the Emergency Department (ED) of two large children's hospitals and treated for sepsis from November 2013 to June 2017. Presentation, ED treatment, and outcomes, primarily time to first bolus and first parental antibiotic, were compared between those transported via EMS versus patients who were self-transported.ResultsOf the 1813 children treated in the ED for sepsis, 1452 were self-transported and 361 were transported via EMS. The EMS group were more frequently male, of black race, and publicly insured than the self-transport group. The EMS group was more likely to have a critical triage category, receive initial care in the resuscitation suite (51.9 vs. 22%), have hypotension at ED presentation (14.4 vs. 5.4%), lactate >2.0 mmol/L (60.6 vs. 40.8%), vasoactive agents initiated in the ED (8.9 vs. 4.9%), and to be intubated in the ED (14.4 vs. 2.8%). The median time to first IV fluid bolus was faster in the EMS group (36 vs. 57 min). Using Cox LASSO to adjust for potential covariates, time to fluids remained faster for the EMS group (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.12, 1.42). Time to antibiotics, ICU LOS, 3- or 30-day mortality rates did not differ, yet median hospital LOS was significantly longer in those transported by EMS versus self-transported (6.5 vs. 5.3 days).ConclusionsChildren with sepsis transported by EMS are a sicker population of children than those self-transported on arrival and had longer hospital stays. EMS transport was associated with earlier in-hospital fluid resuscitation but no difference in time to first antibiotic. Improved prehospital recognition and care is needed to promote adherence to both prehospital and hospital-based sepsis resuscitation benchmarks.     

EMS blood collection from patients with acute chest pain reduces emergency department length of stay

BackgroundExpediting the measurement of serum troponin by leveraging EMS blood collection could reduce the diagnostic time for patients with acute chest pain and help address Emergency Department (ED) overcrowding. However, this practice has not been examined among an ED chest pain patient population in the United States.MethodsA prospective observational cohort study of adults with non-traumatic chest pain without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction was conducted in three EMS agencies between 12/2016–4/2018. During transport, paramedics obtained a patient blood sample that was sent directly to the hospital core lab for troponin measurement. On ED arrival HEART Pathway assessments were completed by ED providers as part of standard care. ED providers were blinded to troponin results from EMS blood samples. To evaluate the potential impact on length of stay (LOS), the time difference between EMS blood draw and first clinical ED draw was calculated. To determine the safety of using troponin measures from EMS blood samples, the diagnostic performance of the HEART Pathway for 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE: composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization) was determined using EMS troponin plus arrival ED troponin and EMS troponin plus a serial 3-h ED troponin.ResultsThe use of EMS blood samples for troponin measures among 401 patients presenting with acute chest pain resulted in a mean potential reduction in LOS of 72.5 ± SD 35.7 min. MACE at 30 days occurred in 21.0% (84/401), with 1 cardiac death, 78 MIs, and 5 revascularizations without MI. Use of the HEART Pathway with EMS and ED arrival troponin measures yielded a NPV of 98.0% (95% CI: 89.6–100). NPV improved to 100% (95% CI: 92.9–100) when using the EMS and 3-h ED troponin measures.ConclusionsEMS blood collection used for core lab ED troponin measures could significantly reduce ED LOS and appears safe when integrated into the HEART Pathway.     

A Prospective Multicenter Evaluation of Prehospital Airway Management Performance in a Large Metropolitan Region

Objectives. To determine 1) the success rate of prehospital endotracheal intubation; 2) the unrecognized tube malposition rate; and 3) predictors of tube malposition upon arrival to the emergency department (ED) in the setting of a large metropolitan area that includes 18 hospitals and 34 transporting emergency medical services (EMS) agencies. Methods. Prospective data were collected on patients for whom prehospital intubation was attempted between September 1, 2004, and January 31, 2005. Endotracheal tube (ETT) position upon arrival to the ED was verified by emergency medicine attending physicians. Missing cases were identified by matching prospective data with lists of attempted intubations submitted by EMS agencies, and data were obtained for these cases by retrospective chart review. Successful intubation was defined as an “endotracheal tube balloon below the cords” on arrival to the ED. Patients were the unit of analysis; proportions with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results. Nine hundred twenty-six patients had an attempted intubation. Methods of airway management were determined for 97.5% (825/846) of those transported to a hospital and 33.8% (27/80) of those who died in the field. For transported patients, 74.8% were successfully intubated, 20% had a failed intubation, 5.2% had a malpositioned tube on arrival to the ED, and 0.6% had another method of airway management used. Malpositioned tubes were significantly more common in pediatric patients (13.0%, compared with 4.0% for nonpediatric patients). Conclusions. Overall intubation success was low, and consistent with previously published series. The frequency of malpositioned ETT was unacceptably high, and also consistent with prior studies. Our data support the need for ongoing monitoring of EMS providers' practices of endotracheal intubation.     

Hospital Process Intervals,not Ems Time Intervals,are the Most Important Predictors of Rapid Reperfusion in Ems Patients with St-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Abstract

Objective. To assess the relationship of emergency medical services (EMS) intervals and internal hospital intervals to the rapid reperfusion of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods. We performed a secondary analysis of a prospectively collected database of STEMI patients transported to a large academic community hospital between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2009. EMS and hospital data intervals included EMS scene time, transport time, hospital arrival to myocardial infarction (MI) team activation (D2Page), page to catheterization laboratory arrival (P2Lab), and catheterization laboratory arrival to reperfusion (L2B). We used two outcomes: EMS scene arrival to reperfusion (S2B) ≤90 minutes and hospital arrival to reperfusion (D2B) ≤90 minutes. Means and proportions are reported. Pearson chi-square and multivariate regression were used for analysis. Results. During the study period, we included 313 EMS-transported STEMI patients with 298 (95.2%) MI team activations. Of these STEMI patients, 295 (94.2%) were taken to the cardiac catheterization laboratory and 244 (78.0%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). For the patients who underwent PCI, 127 (52.5%) had prehospital EMS activation, 202 (82.8%) had D2B ≤90 minutes, and 72 (39%) had S2B ≤90 minutes. In a multivariate analysis, hospital processes EMS activation (OR 7.1, 95% CI 2.7, 18.4], Page to Lab [6.7, 95% CI 2.3, 19.2] and Lab arrival to Reperfusion [18.5, 95% CI 6.1, 55.6]) were the most important predictors of Scene to Balloon ≤ 90 minutes. EMS scene and transport intervals also had a modest association with rapid reperfusion (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78, 0.93 and OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83, 0.95, respectively). In a secondary analysis, Hospital processes (Door to Page [OR 44.8, 95% CI 8.6, 234.4], Page 2 Lab [OR 5.4, 95% CI 1.9, 15.3], and Lab arrival to Reperfusion [OR 14.6 95% CI 2.5, 84.3]), but not EMS scene and transport intervals were the most important predictors D2B ≤90 minutes. Conclusions. In our study, hospital process intervals (EMS activation, door to page, page to laboratory, and laboratory to reperfusion) are key covariates of rapid reperfusion for EMS STEMI patients and should be used when assessing STEMI care.     

Time to antibiotic administration: Sepsis alerts called in emergency department versus in the field via emergency medical services

IntroductionThe Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) identifies patients with “severe sepsis” and mandates antibiotics within a specific time window. Rapid time to administration of antibiotics may improve patient outcomes. The goal of this investigation was to compare time to antibiotic administration when sepsis alerts are called in the emergency department (ED) with those called in the field by emergency medical services (EMS).MethodsThis was a multi-center, retrospective review of patients designated as sepsis alerts in ED or via EMS in the field, presenting to four community emergency departments over a six-month period.Results507 patients were included, 419 in the ED alert group and 88 in the field alert group. Mean time to antibiotic administration was significantly faster in the field alert group when compared to the ED alert group (48.5 min vs 64.5 min, p < 0.001). Patients were more likely to receive antibiotics within 60 min of ED arrival in the field alert group (59.1% vs 44%, p = 0.01). Secondary outcomes including mortality, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, sepsis diagnosis on admission, Clostridioides difficile infection rates, fluid bolus utilization, anti-MRSA antibiotic utilization rates, and anti-Pseudomonal antibiotic utilization rates were not found to be significantly different.ConclusionsSepsis alerts called in the field via EMS may decrease time to antibiotics and increase the likelihood of antibiotic administration occurring within 60 min of arrival when compared to those called in the ED.