Out-of-hospital Rapid-sequence Induction for Intubation of the Pediatric Patient

Objective: To determine the effectiveness and morbidity of out-of-hospital rapid-sequence induction (RSI) for endotracheal intubation (ETI) in the pediatric population.
Methods: The medical records were retrospectively reviewed for a consecutive series of pediatric patients undergoing out-of-hospital RSI by flight paramedics from July 1990 through July 1994. Patient demographics, pharmacologic agents, ED arterial blood gas data, pulmonary complications, and RSI-related complications were abstracted.
Results: Forty patients (31 injured, 9 medical) with a mean age of 8.1 years (range 0.5–17 years) underwent out-of-hospital RSI. Indications for intubation included hyperventilation ( n = 20), combativeness ( n = 16), apnea ( n = 5), and unknown ( n = 5). Intubation mishaps occurred in 13 patients (33%); these included multiple attempts ( n = 9), aspiration ( n = 8), and esophageal intubation ( n = 1). The success rate of ETI was 97.5% (one failed attempt). Hemodynamic side effects occurred in three patients (8%); all three had bradycardia, with one developing hypotension. Bradycardia was associated with failure to pretreat with atropine (p < 0.05). Sixteen pulmonary complications, seven pneumonia (18%) and nine atelectasis (22.5%), occurred in 13 patients within the first ten hospital days. Intubation mishaps were not associated with pulmonary complications. There were six deaths, none associated with RSI.
Conclusions: 1) Rapid-sequence induction is an effective method for obtaining airway control in the critically ill pediatric patient. 2) Intubation mishaps did not influence the rate of pulmonary complications. 3) Omission of atropine was associated with bradycardia during RSI in pediatric patients.     

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.     

Safety Events in High Risk Prehospital Neonatal Calls

Objective: The objective of this study was to quantify and characterize patient safety events during high-risk neonatal transports in the prehospital setting. Method: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all “lights and sirens” ambulance transports of neonates ≤30 days old over a four-year period in a metropolitan area. Each case was independently reviewed for potential patient safety events that may have occurred in clinical assessment and decision making, resuscitation, airway management, fluid or medication administration, procedures performed, and/or equipment used. Results: Twenty-six patients ≤30 days old were transported by ambulance using lights and sirens during the four-year study period. Overall, safety events occurred in 19 patients and severe safety events (potentially causing permanent injury or harm, including death) occurred in ten. The incidence of safety events related to medication administrations was 90% (70% severe), resuscitation 64.7% (47.1% severe), procedures 64.7% (35.3% severe), fluid administration 50% (25% severe), clinical assessment and decision making 50% (30.8% severe), airway management 47.6% (28.6% severe), equipment use 25.5% (10.0% severe), and systems processes 19.2% (7.7% severe). Conclusions: High-risk neonatal calls are infrequent and prone to a high incidence of serious patient safety events.     

EMS Provider and Patient Safety during Response and Transport: Proceedings of an Ambulance Safety Conference

Abstract

The out-of-hospital setting is unique to health care and presents many challenges to providing safe, high-quality medical care in emergency situations. The challenges of the prehospital environment require thoughtful design of systems and processes of care. The unique challenges of ambulance safety may be met by analyzing systems and incorporating process improvements. The purposes of this paper are to 1) outline the nature of this problem, 2) introduce a framework for this discussion, 3) provide expert opinion from a two-day ambulance safety conference, and 4) propose a plan of action to address the safety issues identified in the literature and expert opinion at the conference. Utilizing the Haddon Matrix as a framework, we present the safety issues and proposed solutions for factors contributing to an injury event in the emergency medical services (EMS) transport environment: host, agent, physical environment, and social environment. Host refers to the person or persons at risk, in this case, the EMS personnel or the patient. The agent of injury refers to the energy exerted during the course of an injury, and may be modified to include unrestrained equipment that contributes to the injury. The physical environment refers to the characteristics of the setting in which the injury takes place, such as the roadway or the physical design of the ambulance. Finally, the social environment refers to the social, legal, and cultural norms and practices in the society, such as peer pressure and a culture that discourages the use of safety equipment.     

Out-of-Hospital Chest Escharotomy: A Case Series and Procedure Review

Abstract

Initial care for the burned trauma patient focuses on the rapid assessment and stabilization of airway, breathing, and circulation. Circumferential chest burns may restrict respiratory effort and inhibit adequate ventilation. When this occurs, chest escharotomy is the recommended treatment to restore chest expansion and therefore ventilation. Emergency medical services (EMS) providers infrequently encounter patients with circumferential chest burns, and escharotomy is generally not included in their scope of practice. The authors could not locate any documentation of other escharotomies performed in the out-of-hospital setting. This case series describes the care of two patients that required out-of-hospital chest escharotomy by physician members of a helicopter medical crew. The procedures of chest and neck escharotomies are reviewed, and the logistics of performing escharotomy in the prehospital setting are described.     

Comparison of Errors Using Two Length-Based Tape Systems for Prehospital Care in Children

Background: The use of a length/weight-based tape (LBT) for equipment size and drug dosing for pediatric patients is recommended in a joint statement by multiple national organizations. A new system, known as Handtevy?, allows for rapid determination of critical drug doses without performing calculations. Objective: To compare two LBT systems for dosing errors and time to medication administration in simulated prehospital scenarios. Methods: This was a prospective randomized trial comparing the Broselow Pediatric Emergency Tape? (Broselow) and Handtevy LBT? (Handtevy). Paramedics performed 2 pediatric simulations: cardiac arrest with epinephrine administration and hypoglycemia mandating dextrose. Each scenario was repeated utilizing both systems with a 1-year-old and 5-year-old size manikin. Facilitators recorded identified errors and time points of critical actions including time to medication. Results: We enrolled 80 paramedics, performing 320 simulations. For Dextrose, there were significantly more errors with Broselow (63.8%) compared to Handtevy (13.8%) and time to administration was longer with the Broselow system (220 seconds vs. 173 seconds). For epinephrine, the LBTs were similar in overall error rate (Broselow 21.3% vs. Handtevy 16.3%) and time to administration (89 vs. 91 seconds). Cognitive errors were more frequent when using the Broselow compared to Handtevy, particularly with dextrose administration. The frequency of procedural errors was similar between the two LBT systems. Conclusion: In simulated prehospital scenarios, use of the Handtevy LBT system resulted in fewer errors for dextrose administration compared to the Broselow LBT, with similar time to administration and accuracy of epinephrine administration.     

Emergency Medical Services Bypass of the Closest Facility for Pediatric Patients

Objectives: Pediatric specialty care is increasingly regionalized. It is unknown how regionalization affects emergency medical services (EMS) providers’ destination decisions for non-trauma pediatric patients. We sought to characterize the rates of bypass of the closest facility, and destination facilities’ levels of pediatric care in three diverse EMS agencies.

Methods: This is a one-year retrospective study of non-trauma pediatric patients less than 18 years of age transported by three EMS agencies (Baltimore City, Prince George’s County, and Queen Anne’s County) in 2016. A priori, a bypass was defined as transport to a facility more than 2?km farther than the distance to the closest facility. We calculated rates of bypass and categorized destination and closest facilities by their pediatric service availability using publicly available information. EMS transport distance and time were also compared for bypass and closest facility patients.

Results: The three EMS agencies in 2016 transported a total of 12,258 non-trauma pediatric patients, of whom 11,945 (97%) were successfully geocoded. Overall 43% (n?=?5,087) of patients bypassed the nearest facility, of which 87% (n?=?4,439) were transported to a facility with higher-level pediatric care than the closest facility. Both bypass rates and destination facility pediatric levels differed between agencies. Bypasses had significantly longer transport times and distances as compared to closest facility transports (p?<?0.001). For non-trauma pediatric bypasses alone, an additional 41,494 kilometers traveled, and 979?hours of EMS transport time was attributable to bypassing the closest facility.

Conclusions: This study reveals a high rate of pediatric bypass for non-trauma patients in three diverse EMS agencies. Bypass results in increased EMS resource utilization through longer transport time and distance. For non-trauma pediatric patients for whom there is little destination guidance, further work is required to determine bypass’ effects on patient outcomes.     

Promoting Patient Safety and Preventing Medical Error in Emergency Departments

An estimated 108,000 people die each year from potentially preventable iatrogenic injury. One in 50 hospitalized patients experiences a preventable adverse event. Up to 3% of these injuries and events take place in emergency departments. With long and detailed training, morbidity and mortality conferences, and an emphasis on practitioner responsibility, medicine has traditionally faced the challenges of medical error and patient safety through an approach focused almost exclusively on individual practitioners. Yet no matter how well trained and how careful health care providers are, individuals will make mistakes because they are human. In general medicine, the study of adverse drug events has led the way to new methods of error detection and error prevention. A combination of chart reviews, incident logs, observation, and peer solicitation has provided a quantitative tool to demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions such as computer order entry and pharmacist order review. In emergency medicine (EM), error detection has focused on subjects of high liability: missed myocardial infarctions, missed appendicitis, and misreading of radiographs. Some system-level efforts in error prevention have focused on teamwork, on strengthening communication between pharmacists and emergency physicians, on automating drug dosing and distribution, and on rationalizing shifts. This article reviews the definitions, detection, and presentation of error in medicine and EM. Based on review of the current literature, recommendations are offered to enhance the likelihood of reduction of error in EM practice.     

Medically Unnecessary Pediatric Ambulance Transports: A Medical Taxi Service?

Objective : To characterize ambulance utilization in a pediatric population and pediatric emergency physicians' judgment of the medical need for ambulance transport. Methods : A convenience sample of ambulance transports were studied prospectively during a 5-week period. Exclusion criteria included transfer from another medical facility, study physician not available, need for immediate resuscitation, or trauma team activation. A questionnaire completed by the physician assessed medical need for the ambulance based on chief complaint, general appearance, vital signs, and ambulance run sheet information. A separate questionnaire was administered to the parents regarding reasons for ambulance use and other available means of transportation. Caregivers were contacted by telephone 2–3 days later to determine the mode of transportation home and the clinical outcome. Results : Of 172 eligible patients, 92 (53%) were enrolled. Most (61%; 56/92) transports were considered medically unnecessary. Interestingly, 40% (37/92) of the subjects had no other means of transportation; 86% (32/37) of ambulance transports for this group were judged medically unnecessary. Overall, 86% (79/92) of families had not called their physician. There was no association between having spoken with the physician and medical need for an ambulance. Many (82%; 46/56) Medicaid transports were judged medically unnecessary. Overall, follow-up was achieved for 91% (85/92) of the patients. No patient for whom transport was medically unnecessary had a repeat ED visit for the same complaint or required admission. Most patients (74%; 68/92) returned home without any assistance. Among the medically unnecessary transports, 52% (32/ 60) of the caregivers cited no other means of transportation, yet 34% (11/32) of these patients returned home by private car. Conclusions : Most pediatric ambulance transports in this sample, which excluded patients requiring immediate resuscitation or trauma team care, were judged to be medically unnecessary. Caregivers often use an ambulance as a convenience or as the only means of transportation. An alternate, less resource-intensive transportation system may be more appropriate for this population.     

Research in Prehospital Care: Overcoming the Barriers to Success

Objective. The objective of this project was to determine how investigators conduct clinical trials in the prehospital setting and to suggest how emergency medical services (EMS) systems can develop the capacity to conduct prehospital clinical research. Methods. A representative sample of U.S.-based study sites was selected from all studies registered on clinicaltrials.gov since the year 2000, where prehospital care providers conducted study-related activities in the prehospital setting. The site principal investigator and the research coordinator or EMS liaison were invited to participate in a structured discussion. A single interviewer conducted each discussion following a structured guide that generically asked for barriers and enablers to the sites’ research success and then reviewed commonly identified prehospital research barriers. Notes were taken during each discussion and reviewed for common themes. Themes were reviewed by the project team and sent for comment to all participants. Results. Discussions were held with 25 principal investigators, 9 coordinators, and 7 EMS liaisons. A total of 27 communities were represented in the discussions from 22 different states. The communities had a range of research experience from one prehospital trial to multiple trials. Key barriers were funding, ethics approval, data collection, protocol training and compliance, randomizing and blinding interventions, obtaining patient outcomes, adequate study staffing, and partnering with EMS agencies. Conclusion. This project identified many challenges to EMS research, but they were not insurmountable. Not every community can conduct every prehospital study. Communities should engage in studies that align with their values and resources. Investigators need to develop honest relationships where issues can be openly discussed and the community can collaborate on prehospital research. Learning from those who have overcome challenges may be a key to expanding the quality and quantity of EMS research.     

Perceptions by Families of Emergency Medical Service Interventions During Imminent Pediatric Out-of-Hospital Death

Objective: To understand how family members view the ways Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and other first responders interact with distressed family members during an intervention involving a recent or impending pediatric death.

Methods: In depth interviews with 11 grieving parents of young children and survey results from 4 additional grieving parents of adult children were conducted as part of a larger study on effective ways for EMS providers to interact with distressed family members during a pediatric death in the field. The responses were analyzed using qualitative content analyses.

Results: Family reactions to the crisis and the professional response by first responders were critical to family coping and getting necessary support. There were several critical competencies identified to help the family cope including: (1) that first responders provide excellent and expeditious care with seamless coordination, (2) allowing family to witness the resuscitation including the attempts to save the child’s life, and (3) providing ongoing communication. Whether the child is removed from the scene or not, keeping the family apprised of what is happening and why is critical. Giving tangible forms of support by calling friends, family, and clergy, along with allowing the family time with the child after death, giving emotional support, and follow-up gestures all help families cope.

Conclusion: The study generated hypothetical ways for first responders to interact with distressed family members during an OOH pediatric death.