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.     

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     

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.     

Factors Affecting Emergency Department Opioid Administration to Severely Injured Patients

OBJECTIVES: Studies of emergency department (ED) pain management in patients with trauma have been mostly restricted to patients with fractures, yet the potential for undertreatment of more severely injured patients is great. The authors sought to identify factors associated with failure to receive ED opioid administration in patients with acute trauma who subsequently required hospitalization. METHODS: At an urban Level 1 trauma center and teaching hospital, a retrospective cohort study of trauma team activation patients requiring hospitalization between January 1 and December 31, 1999, was conducted. The authors excluded patients receiving opioids only within ten minutes of chest tube insertion or fracture manipulation. The main outcome measure was ED opioid administration. RESULTS: A total of 540 charts of hospitalized first-tier trauma team activation patients were reviewed. A total of 258 (47.8%) received intravenous opioid analgesia within three hours of ED arrival. The median time to receiving the first dose of opioids was 95 minutes. Patients were independently less likely to receive opioids if they were younger or older, were intubated, had a lower Revised Trauma Score, or did not require fracture manipulation. Patients with these factors were less likely to receive opioids independent of the amount of time they spent in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: Many trauma activation patients requiring hospitalization do not receive opioid analgesia in the ED. Patients at particular risk for oligoanalgesia include those who are younger or older and those who are more seriously injured, as defined by a lower Revised Trauma Score, lower Glasgow Coma Scale score, and intubation.     

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.     

Prehospital Analgesia for Pediatric Trauma Patients in Iraq and Afghanistan

Background: Previous studies have evaluated prehospital analgesia during combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but were limited to the adult population. However, a significant portion of the casualties of those conflicts were children. We describe the prehospital analgesia administered to wartime pediatric trauma patients. Methods: We queried the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR) for all pediatric patients (<18 years of age) admitted to United States and Coalition fixed-facility hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan from January 2007 to January 2016. We divided pediatric patients into 2 groups: those that had documentation of receipt of analgesic drugs in the prehospital setting (n = 618) and those who had not received analgesia before reaching a fixed-facility (n = 2,821). For characterization of drug administration, we grouped patients into those receiving acetaminophen, NSAID, fentanyl, ketamine, morphine, or other analgesics (e.g., hydromorphone, tramadol, etc.). Results: During the study period, there were 3,439 pediatric encounters with documentation of 703 instances of analgesia administrations to 618 patients (17.9% of total pediatric encounters). Of the subjects receiving analgesic agents, 46.2% (n = 325) received morphine, 30.4% (n = 214) received fentanyl, 17.4% (n = 122) received ketamine, 1.8% (n = 13) received acetaminophen, and 2.8% (n = 20) received a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. The remaining 9 administrations consisted of methoxyflourane (1), nalbuphine (2), hydromorphone (3), and tramadol (3). An injury severity score (ISS) >15 increased the odds of receiving an analgesic agent (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02–1.56). Additionally, there was an association between analgesia administration and the following prehospital interventions: wound dressing, tourniquet, intravenous (IV) line placement, intraosseous line placement, IV fluids, intubation, and external warming. Conclusions: Overall, a low proportion of pediatric trauma subjects within this population received analgesia in the prehospital environment. The most common analgesic medication administered was morphine. Those receiving analgesic agents had more severe injuries and higher rates of concomitant interventions. These results highlight the potential need for Tactical Combat Casualty Care guidelines specifically providing recommendations for analgesia administration among pediatric patients.     

Potential time savings by prehospital administration of activated charcoal

Objective. Activated charcoal (AC) has been proven useful in many toxic ingestions. Theoretically, administration of AC in the prehospital environment could save valuable time in the treatment of patients who have sustained potentially toxic oral ingestions. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency of prehospital AC administration and to identify time savings that could potentially result from field AC administration.

Methods. Adult patients with a chief complaint of toxic ingestion who had complete emergency medical services (EMS) and emergency department (ED) records and no medical treatment (gastric emptying, AC administration) prior to EMS arrival were eligible for inclusion. Data obtained from EMS and ED records included time of EMS departure from the scene, time of EMS arrival at the ED, and time of administration of AC in the ED. Since most EMS agencies in this system do not insert gastric tubes, patients requiring gastric tube placement for administration of AC were excluded.

Results. Twenty-nine of 117 (24.8%) adult patients received oral AC with no other intervention. None of the 117 patients received AC in the prehospital setting. The EMS transport time for these patients ranged from 5 to 43 minutes (mean 16.2 ± 9.7 minutes). The delay from ED arrival to AC administration ranged from 5 to 94 minutes (mean 48.8 ± 24.1 minutes), and was more than 60 minutes for 14 (48.2%) of the patients. The total time interval from scene departure to ED AC administration ranged from 17 to 111 minutes (mean 65.0 ± 25.9 minutes). Conclusions. In a selected subset of patients who tolerate oral AC, prehospital administration of AC could result in earlier and potentially more efficacious AC therapy. Prospective study of the benefits and feasibility of prehospital AC administration is indicated.     

The Effect of Emergency Department Crowding on Analgesia in Patients with Back Pain in Two Hospitals

Objectives: The authors assessed the association between measures of emergency department (ED) crowding and treatment with analgesia and delays to analgesia in ED patients with back pain. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of nonpregnant patients who presented to two EDs (an academic ED and a community ED in the same health system) from July 1, 2003, to February 28, 2007, with a chief complaint of “back pain.” Each patient had four validated crowding measures assigned at triage. Main outcomes were the use of analgesia and delays in time to receiving analgesia. Delays were defined as greater than 1 hour to receive any analgesia from the triage time and from the room placement time. The Cochrane‐Armitage test for trend, the Cuzick test for trend, and relative risk (RR) regression were used to test the effects of crowding on outcomes. Results: A total of 5,616 patients with back pain presented to the two EDs over the study period (mean ± SD age = 44 ± 17 years, 57% female, 62% black or African American). Of those, 4,425 (79%) received any analgesia while in the ED. A total of 3,589 (81%) experienced a delay greater than 1 hour from triage to analgesia, and 2,985 (67%) experienced a delay more than 1 hour from room placement to analgesia. When hospitals were analyzed separately, a higher proportion of patients experienced delays at the academic site compared with the community site for triage to analgesia (87% vs. 74%) and room to analgesia (71% vs. 63%; both p < 0.001). All ED crowding measures were associated with a higher likelihood for delays in both outcomes. At the academic site, patients were more likely to receive analgesia at the highest waiting room numbers. There were no other differences in ED crowding and likelihood of receiving medications in the ED at the two sites. These associations persisted in the adjusted analysis after controlling for potential confounders of analgesia administration. Conclusions: As ED crowding increases, there is a higher likelihood of delays in administration of pain medication in patients with back pain. Analgesia administration was not related to three measures of ED crowding; however, patients were actually more likely to receive analgesics when the waiting room was at peak levels in the academic ED. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:276–283 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine     

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.     

Pain score documentation and analgesia: A comparison of children and adults with appendicitis

Objective: There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that administration of analgesia in paediatric ED is inadequate. The present study was designed to assess pain score documentation and provision of opioid analgesia to children and adults with confirmed appendicitis in a mixed Australian ED. Method: A retrospective chart review of all adults and children with histologically confirmed appendicitis diagnosed in the Townsville ED during 2006 was performed. Data collected included pain score documentation, weight, opioid dose, oral analgesia, time of presentation, level of doctor and prehospital analgesia. Results: Data were collected for 106 adults and 39 children. Among them, 13 (33%) children compared with 79 (75%) adults had a pain score documented (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07–0.37, P < 0.001). And 11 (28%) children compared with 79 (75%) adults received i.v. morphine (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.06–0.31, P < 0.001). Administration of oral analgesia lowered the likelihood and pain score documentation increased the likelihood of receiving morphine in both children and adults. Conclusion: Documentation of pain scores and provision of i.v. morphine is generally poor. Children are less likely than adults to have a pain score documented, or receive i.v. morphine when presenting with appendicitis.     

Parenteral analgesic and sedative use among ED patients in the United States: combined results from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) 1992-1997

The objective of the study was to describe parenteral analgesic and sedative (PAS) use among patients treated in US emergency departments (EDs). Data representing 6 consecutive years (1992-1997) from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) were combined and analyzed. Patients were identified as having received PAS if they received fentanyl, ketamine, meperidine, methohexital, midazolam, morphine, nitrous oxide, or propofol. Patients were stratified according to age (pediatric <18 years), race, gender, insurance, type of hospital, urgency of visit, and ICD-9 diagnostic codes. Logistic regression was performed to determine independent associations and calculate odds ratios (OR) for receiving analgesia or sedation. A total of 43,725 pediatric and 114,207 adult ED encounters were analyzed and represented a weighted sample of 555.3 million ED visits. For patients with orthopedic fractures, African American children covered by Medicaid insurance were the least likely to receive PAS (OR 0.2, 95% confidence interval 0.1-0.6). These results suggest that variations may be occurring among ED patients receiving PAS.     

Parenteral analgesic and sedative use among ED patients in the United States: combined results from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) 1992-1997

This article describes parenteral analgesic and sedative (PAS) use among patients treated in US emergency departments (EDs). Data representing 6 consecutive years (1992-1997) from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) were combined and analyzed. Patients were identified as having received PAS if they received fentanyl, ketamine, meperidine, methohexital, midazolam, morphine, nitrous oxide, or propofol. Patients were stratified according to age (pediatric <18 yrs), race, sex, insurance, type of hospital, urgency of visit, and ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision) diagnostic codes. Logistic regression was performed to determine independent associations and calculate odds ratios (OR) for receiving analgesia or sedation. A total of 43,725 pediatric and 114,207 adult ED encounters were analyzed and represented a weighted sample of 555.3 million ED visits. For patients with orthopedic fractures, African-American children covered by Medicaid insurance were the least likely to receive PAS (OR 0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1-0.6). These results suggest that variations may be occurring among ED patients receiving PAS.     

Women are less likely than men to receive prehospital analgesia for isolated extremity injuries

Objectives

The goal of this study was to examine the effect of socioeconomic factors, such as ethnicity, income, age, and sex, on the administration of analgesia for isolated extremity injuries in the prehospital setting.

Methods

For this retrospective study, the electronic medical record of a large ground-based emergency medical services agency was reviewed and all isolated extremity injuries occurring during the year 2005 were extracted. A total of 1009 cases met the inclusion criteria. Of these cases, 56 were excluded because of incomplete records, leaving 953 cases for analysis. Basic univariate analysis as well as logistic regression analysis were used to examine the relationship between analgesia administration and patient age, ethnicity, sex, income, subjective pain severity, and time under prehospital care.

Results

A total of 279 patients (29%) received morphine. Both univariate and logistic regression analysis revealed significant differences in analgesia administration based on sex (proportion of men receiving analgesia, 32.8%; women, 26.7%), initial pain severity, and time under prehospital care. Although no category of income was itself significant, a significant trend emerged in which increasing income was associated with increasing likelihood of receiving analgesia. There was no significant difference in analgesia based on patient age or ethnicity.

Conclusion

This study suggests that women are less likely than men to receive prehospital analgesia for isolated extremity injuries. Patients with higher pain severity and longer duration of prehospital care are more likely to receive prehospital analgesia. Increasing levels of income were associated with increased rates of analgesia. The overall rate of prehospital analgesia administration for isolated extremity injuries in this population is higher than has been reported for other emergency medical services systems (29% vs 2%-18% in other recent studies), but there remains considerable room for improvement in the provision of prehospital analgesia. Further inquiry is needed to determine why certain populations such as women receive disproportionately less analgesia.     

Subdissociative‐dose Ketamine versus Fentanyl for Analgesia during Propofol Procedural Sedation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objectives: The authors sought to compare the safety and efficacy of subdissociative‐dose ketamine versus fentanyl as adjunct analgesics for emergency department (ED) procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) with propofol. Methods: This double‐blind, randomized trial enrolled American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) Class I or II ED patients, aged 14–65 years, requiring PSA for orthopedic reduction or abscess drainage. Subjects received 0.3 mg/kg ketamine or 1.5 μg/kg fentanyl intravenously (IV), followed by IV propofol titrated to deep sedation. Supplemental oxygen was not routinely administered. The primary outcomes were the frequency and severity of cardiorespiratory events and interventions, rated using a composite intrasedation event rating scale. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of specific scale component events, propofol doses required to achieve and maintain sedation, times to sedation and recovery, and physician and patient satisfaction. Results: Sixty‐three patients were enrolled. Of patients who received fentanyl, 26/31 (83.9%) had an intrasedation event versus 15/32 (46.9%) of those who received ketamine. Events prospectively rated as moderate or severe were seen in 16/31 (51.6%) of fentanyl subjects versus 7/32 (21.9%) of ketamine subjects. Patients receiving fentanyl had 5.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.9 to 13.6; p < 0.001) times the odds of having a more serious intrasedation event rating than patients receiving ketamine. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes, apart from higher propofol doses in the ketamine arm. Conclusions: Subdissociative‐dose ketamine is safer than fentanyl for ED PSA with propofol and appears to have similar efficacy.     

Racial Differences in Receiving Morphine among Prehospital Patients with Blunt Trauma

Background

Pain management is an important part of prehospital care, yet few studies have addressed the effects of age, sex, race, or pain severity on prehospital pain management.

Objectives

To examine the association of sex, age, race, and pain severity with analgesia administration for blunt trauma in the prehospital setting.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we used the automated registry of a large urban Emergency Medical Services agency to identify records of all patients transported for blunt trauma injuries between February 1 and November 1, 2009. We used bivariable and multivariable analyses with logistic regression models to determine the relationship between analgesia administration and patient sex, race, age, pain score on a pain scale, and time under prehospital care.

Results

We identified 6398 blunt trauma cases. There were 516 patients (8%) who received analgesia overall; among patients for whom a pain scale was recorded, 25% received analgesia. By multivariable analysis, adjusting for race, sex, age, time with patient, and pain score, African-American and Hispanic patients were less likely than Caucasian patients to receive analgesia. Pain score and prehospital time were both significant predictors of analgesia administration, with higher pain score and longer prehospital time associated with increased administration of pain medication. Neither sex nor age was a significant predictor of analgesia administration in the regression analysis.

Conclusion

This study suggests that Caucasians are more likely than African-Americans or Hispanics to receive prehospital analgesia for blunt trauma injuries. In addition, patients with whom paramedics spend more time and for whom a pain score is recorded are more likely to receive analgesia.     

T HE E FFECTS OF P REHOSPITAL A DVANCED L IFE S UPPORT D RUG T REATMENT ON P ATIENT I MPROVEMENT AND I N-HOSPITAL U TILIZATION

Objective. There is little published evidence to support the benefits of prehospital drug administration by ambulance personnel in reducing subsequent hospital utilization by the medical patients receiving such drugs. The authors studied the outcome of patients treated by Ontario's Emergency Health Services “Symptom Relief Drug Program,” which was developed to relieve patient symptoms in the field for specific medical emergencies. Methods. A retrospective study spanning a three-year period from January 1996 to December 1998 was undertaken in a mid-sized southern Ontario community. From a review of ambulance call reports (ACRs), eligible patients were recruited by mail and divided into two groups: those treated before the introduction of the program (pre) and those treated after (post). Out-of-hospital data were retrieved from ACRs and in-hospital data were gathered from medical chart reviews. Outcomes included emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS), frequency of admissions, and departmental use. Secondary endpoints included differences in prehospital improvement, ED interventions, and ambulance scene times. Results. For the unpaired analysis, 406 patients provided consent (pre: 215 vs post: 191). Ambulance time on scene was longer in the post group, 14.2 minutes (95% CI 13.7–14.8), versus the pre group, 12.3 minutes (95% CI 11.7–12.9), p < 0.001. A larger proportion of patients receiving prehospital drug treatment were judged to have improved on ED arrival (pre: 19.5% vs post: 48.2%, χ² p < 0.0001). The ED LOSs did not differ between groups (pre: 206.9?min, 95% CI 185.9–230.4, vs post: 220.9?min, 95% CI 196.9–247.7, p = 0.42) but were shorter within the post group for hypoglycemic patients receiving glucagon. The overall proportion of admissions was significantly lower in the post group (pre: 145 [67.4%] vs post: 102 [54.3%], χ² p < 0.01), and this was driven by chest pain patients. Conclusions. The lower rate of admissions for chest pain patients is the first published evidence of prehospital drug treatment's reducing hospital utilization in a subgroup of such medical patients. The “Symptom Relief Drug Program” is effective in improving patients' field conditions and can decrease ED LOS in hypoglycemic persons receiving glucagon injections. More outcome research pertaining to ambulance-administered prehospital drug treatment is warranted.     

Pediatric emergency department triage-based pain guideline utilizing intranasal fentanyl: Effect of implementation

Background

Pain management guidelines in the emergency department (ED) may reduce time to analgesia administration (TTA). Intranasal fentanyl (INF) is a safe and effective alternative to intravenous opiates. The effect of an ED pain management guideline providing standing orders for nurse-initiated administration of intranasal fentanyl (INF) is not known. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of a pediatric ED triage-based pain protocol utilizing intranasal fentanyl (INF) on time to analgesia administration (TTA) and patient and parent satisfaction.

Time to antibiotics for septic shock: evaluating a proposed performance measure

Purposes

International guidelines recommend antibiotics within 1 hour of septic shock recognition; however, a recently proposed performance measure is focused on measuring antibiotic administration within 3 hours of emergency department (ED) arrival. Our objective was to describe the time course of septic shock and subsequent implications for performance measurement.

Basic procedures

Cross-sectional study of consecutive ED patients ultimately diagnosed with septic shock. All patients were evaluated at an urban, academic ED in 2006 to 2008. Primary outcomes included time to definition of septic shock and performance on 2 measures: antibiotics within 3 hours of ED arrival vs antibiotics within 1 hour of septic shock definition.

Main findings

Of 267 patients with septic shock, the median time to definition was 88 minutes (interquartile range, 37-156), and 217 patients (81.9%) met the definition within 3 hours of arrival. Of 221 (83.4%) of patients who received antibiotics within 3 hours of arrival, 38 (17.2%) did not receive antibiotics within 1 hour of definition. Of 207 patients who received antibiotics within 1 hour of definition, 11.6% (n = 24) did not receive antibiotics within 3 hours of arrival. The arrival measure did not accurately classify performance in 23.4% of patients.

Principal conclusions

Nearly 1 of 5 patients cannot be captured for performance measurement within 3 hours of ED arrival due to the variable progression of septic shock. Use of this measure would misclassify performance in 23% of patients. Measuring antibiotic administration based on the clinical course of septic shock rather than from ED arrival would be more appropriate.