Search

Although most US emergency medical services (EMS) systems collect time-to-treatment data in their electronic prehospital patient care reports (PCRs), analysis of these data seldom appears in publications. We believe EMS agencies should routinely analyze the initial time-to-treatment data for various potentially life-threatening conditions. This not only assures that protocol-required treatments have been provided but can discover avoidable delays and drive protocol/treatment priority change. Our study purpose was to analyze the interval from 9-1-1 call receipt until the first administration of naloxone to adult opioid overdose victims to demonstrate the quality assurance importance of analyzing time-to-treatment data.Retrospective analysis of intervals from 9-1-1 call receipt to initial naloxone treatment in adult opioid overdose victims. We excluded victims18 years of age and cases where a bystander, police, or a health care worker gave naloxone before EMS arrival. We compared data collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to determine its effect on the analysis.The mean patient age of 582 opioid overdose victims was 40.7 years [95% CI 39.6, 41.8] with 405 males (69.6%). EMS units' scene arrival was 6.7 minutes from the 9-1-1 call receipt. It took 1.8 minutes to reach the victim, and 8.6 additional minutes to administer the first naloxone regardless of administration route (70.4% intravenous, 26.1% intranasal, 2.7% intraosseous, 0.7% intramuscular). EMS personnel administered the first naloxone 17.1 minutes after the 9-1-1 call receipt, with 50.3% of the delay occurring after patient contact. There was no statistically significant difference in the times-to-treatment before vs. during the pandemic.The prepandemic interval from 9-1-1 call receipt until initial EMS administration of naloxone was substantial and did not change significantly during COVID-19. Our findings exemplify why EMS agencies should analyze initial time-to-treatment data, especially for life-threatening conditions, beyond assuring that protocol-required treatments have been provided. Based on our analysis, fire department crews now carry intranasal naloxone, and intranasal naloxone is given to "impaired" opioid overdose victims the first-arriving fire department or EMS personnel. We continue to collect data on intervals-to-treatment prospectively and monitor our critical process/treatment intervals using the plan-do-study-act model to improve our process/carry out change, and publish our results in a future publication.

As attention to, and motivation for, emergency medical services (EMS)-related research continues to grow, particularly exception from informed consent (EFIC) research, it is important to understand the thoughts, beliefs, and experiences of EMS providers who are actively engaged in the research.We explored the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of EMS providers regarding their involvement in prehospital emergency research, particularly EFIC research.Using a qualitative design, 24 participants were interviewed including nationally registered paramedics and Virginia-certified emergency medical technicians employed at Richmond Ambulance Authority, the participating EMS agency. At the time of our interviews, the EMS agency was involved in an EFIC trial. Transcribed interview data were coded and analyzed for themes. Findings were presented back to the EMS agency for validation.Overall, there appeared to be support for prehospital emergency research. Participants viewed research as necessary for the advancement of the field of EMS. Improvement in patient care was identified as one of the most important benefits. A number of ethical considerations were identified: individual risk versus public good and consent. The EMS providers in our study were open to working with EMS researchers throughout the community consultation and public disclosure process.The EMS providers in our study valued research and were willing to participate in studies. Support for research was balanced with concerns and challenges regarding the role of providers in the research process.

The optimal Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system characteristics have not been defined, resulting in substantial variability across systems. The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) is a United States-Canada research network that organized EMS agencies from 11 different systems to perform controlled trials in cardiac arrest and life-threatening trauma resuscitation.To describe EMS systems participating in ROC using a novel framework.Standardized surveys were created by ROC investigators and distributed to each site for completion. These included separate questions for individual hospitals, EMS agencies, and dispatch centers. Results were collated and analyzed by using descriptive statistics.A total of 264 EMS agencies, 287 hospitals, and 154 dispatch centers were included. Agencies were described with respect to the type (fire-based, non-fire governmental, private), transport status (transport/non-transport), and training level (BLS/ALS). Hospitals were described with regard to their trauma designation and the presence of electrophysiology and cardiac catheterization laboratories. Dispatch center characteristics, including primary versus secondary public safety answering point (PSAP) status and the use of prearrival instructions, were also described. Differences in EMS system characteristics between ROC sites were observed with multiple intriguing patterns. Rural areas and fire-based agencies had more EMS units and providers per capita. This may reflect longer response and transport distances in rural areas and the additional duties of most fire-based providers. In addition, hospitals in the United States typically had catheterization laboratories, whereas Canadian hospitals generally did not. The vast majority of both primary and secondary PSAPs use computer-aided dispatch.Similarities and differences among EMS systems participating in the ROC network were described. The framework used in this analysis may serve as a template for future EMS research.

Why does LEA-D intervention seem to work in some systems but not others? Panelists agreed that some factors that delay rapid access to treatment, such as long travel distances in rural areas, may represent insurmountable barriers. Other factors, however, may be addressed more readily. These include: absence of a medical response culture, discomfort with the role of medical intervention, insecurity with the use of medical devices, a lack of proactive medical direction, infrequent refresher training, and dependence on EMS intervention. Panelists agreed that successful LEA-D programs possess ten key attributes (Table 6). In the end, the goal remains "early" defibrillation, not "police" defibrillation. It does not matter whether the rescuer wears a blue uniform--or any uniform, for that matter--so long as the defibrillator reaches the victim quickly. If LEA personnel routinely arrive at medical emergencies after other emergency responders or after 8 minutes have elapsed from the time of collapse, an LEA-D program will be unlikely to provide added value. Similarly, if police frequently arrive first, but the department is unwilling or unable to cultivate the attributes of successful LEA-D programs, efforts to improve survival may not be realized. In most communities, however, LEA-D programs have tremendous lifesaving potential and are well worth the investment of time and resources. Law enforcement agencies considering adoption of AED programs should review the frequency with which police arrive first at medical emergencies and LEA response intervals to determine whether AED programs might help improve survival in their communities. It is time for law enforcement agency defibrillation to become the rule, not the exception.

Out-of-hospital resuscitation protocols for patients suffering cardiac arrest have historically included cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation, and rapid transport to a hospital. For many years, use of drugs to improve myocardial perfusion or to correct arrhythmias that occur during cardiac arrest has been part of prehospital efforts to revive patients in ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Use of some of these drugs, however, may be based more on tradition than on well-documented evidence of efficacy. The authors reviewed pertinent data on the vasopressors epinephrine and vasopressin and the antiarrhythmics amiodarone and lidocaine to evaluate the usefulness of these drugs in cardiac arrest. They found little clinical data supporting the prehospital use of lidocaine in cardiac arrest, and despite a great deal of laboratory and clinical data addressing the efficacy of epinephrine, there is no large, randomized, controlled clinical trial supporting its use. Data on amiodarone and vasopressin support the use of these drugs in out-of-hospital resuscitation efforts.

Approximately 1,000 people in the United States suffer cardiac arrest each day, most often as a complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with accompanying ventricular fibrillation or unstable ventricular tachycardia. Increasing the number of patients who survive cardiac arrest and minimizing the clinical sequelae associated with cardiac arrest in those who do survive are the objectives of emergency medical personnel. In 1990, the American Heart Association (AHA) suggested the chain of survival concept, with four links--early access, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), defibrillation, and advanced care--as the way to approach cardiac arrest. The recently published International Resuscitation Guidelines 2000 of the AHA have addressed advances in our understanding of the chain of survival. While the chain of survival concept has withstood a decade of scrutiny, there are only a few scientifically rigorous research studies that support changes in prehospital patient care. Additional research efforts carried out in the prehospital setting are needed to support the concepts included in the chain of survival for cardiac arrest patients. Participants at the second Turtle Creek Conference, a meeting of experts in the field of emergency medicine held in Dallas, Texas, on March 29-31, 2000, discussed these and other issues associated with prehospital emergency care in the cardiac arrest patient. This paper addresses a number of the issues associated with each of the links of the chain of survival, the evidence that exists, and what should be done to achieve the clinical evidence needed for true clinical significance. Also included in this paper are the consensus statements developed from small discussion groups held after the main presentation. These comments provide another perspective to the problems and to possible approaches to deal with them.

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) refers to the spectrum of cardiac disease, from unstable angina to ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. In the emergency medical services (EMS) setting, ACS may be more broadly thought to include patients with chest pain or other symptoms believed to have a cardiac origin who have evidence of ischemia or acute myocardial infarction on a 12-lead electrocardiogram, or symptomatic patients with a previous cardiac event or known cardiac disease. Pharmacologic management of these patients is based on the use of three primary classes of drugs: those that affect clotting, those that establish and maintain hemodynamic control, and those that relieve pain. Many of these agents have been evaluated in large clinical trials for in-hospital use, and a number of ongoing studies are assessing their efficacy in the prehospital setting. The appropriateness of prehospital use of specific agents within each class depends on proper patient selection, the necessity of immediate intervention, ease of use in the field, expertise of EMS personnel, and cost-effectiveness of therapy. This consensus group reviewed agents from all three classes (including aspirin, GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors, unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparins, fibrinolytics, beta-adrenergic blockers, calcium antagonists, nitrates, and morphine) for their overall indication, applicability to the prehospital setting, and current prehospital use.

Awareness of the health and financial repercussions of unnecessary immobilization has made cervical spinal immobilization controversial in out-of-hospital care. Clinical criteria for clearance of the cervical spine in the hospital based on mechanism of injury have been supported by many trauma centers. However, implementation of clinical criteria for cervical spinal clearance in out-of-hospital settings is not as well validated by multicenter studies or accepted by many emergency departments. This consensus group recommends that clinical criteria to determine "low-risk" patients be available for use by emergency medical services providers in out-of-hospital settings; however, training, audits, quality management, integration into the medical community, and extent of program implementation should be decided based on individual emergency medical services systems.

Optimal prehospital cardiovascular care may improve the morbidity and mortality associated with acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs) that begin in the community. Reducing the time delays from AMI symptom onset to intervention begins with maximizing effective patient education to reduce patient delay in recognizing symptoms and seeking assistance. Transportation delays can be minimized by appropriate use of 911 systems and improving technological 911 support. Patient triage to heart centers from the prehospital setting requires strict and comprehensive definition of the criteria for these centers by competent, unbiased clinical societies or governmental agencies. Prehospital 12-lead electrocardiograms and initiation of thrombolytic therapy can provide acute diagnosis and early treatment, thus facilitating faster processing and more directed in-hospital intervention. They also minimize over- and undertriage of patients to cardiac centers. Although evidence from investigational trials suggests that many of these procedures are effective, more research is required to ensure correct implementation and quality assurance at all emergency service levels.

The complete and irreversible cessation of life is often difficult to determine with complete confidence in the dynamic environment of out-of-hospital emergency care. As a result, resuscitation efforts often are initiated and maintained by emergency medical services (EMS) providers in many hopeless situations. Medical guidelines are reviewed here to aid EMS organizations with respect to decisions about: 1) initiating or waiving resuscitation efforts; 2) the appropriate duration of resuscitation efforts; and 3) recommended procedures for on-scene or prehospital pronouncement of death (termination of resuscitation). In cases of nontraumatic cardiac arrest, few unassailable criteria, other than certain physical signs of irreversible tissue deterioration, exist for determining medical futility at the initial encounter with the patient. Thus, the general medical recommendation is to attempt to resuscitate all patients, adult or child, in the absence of rigor mortis or dependent lividity. Conversely, wellfounded guidelines now are available for decisions regarding termination of resuscitation in such patients once they have received a trial of advanced cardiac life support. In practice, however, the final decision to proceed with on-scene pronouncement of death for these patients may be determined more by family and provider comfort levels and the specific on-scene environment. For patients with posttraumatic circulatory arrest, the type of injury (blunt or penetrating), the presence of vital signs, and the electrocardiographic findings are used to determine the futility of initiating or continuing resuscitation efforts. In general, patients who are asystolic on-scene are candidates for on-scene pronouncement, regardless of mechanism. With a few exceptions, blunt trauma patients with a clearly associated mechanism of lethal injury are generally candidates for immediate cessation of efforts once they lose their pulses and respirations. Regardless of the medical futility criteria, specialized training of EMS providers and targeted related testing of operational issues need to precede field implementation of on-scene pronouncement policies. Such policies also must be modified and adapted for local issues and resources. In addition, although the current determinations of medical futility, as delineated here, are important to establish for societal needs, the individual patient's right to live must be kept in mind always as new medical advances are developed.

Airway management and optimal ventilation are crucial aspects of managing out-of-hospital medical emergencies. The goals in these situations are controlled ventilation and optimized inspiratory time, expiratory time, and airflow. Numerous techniques and devices are available to deliver oxygen-enriched air to patients during resuscitation. The bag-valve-mask (BVM) is one of the most common devices used to provide ventilation, although the American Heart Association ranks BVM devices lower in preference than other ventilation adjuncts, such as emergency and transport ventilators (ETVs) and pocket masks. The clearly documented limitations of BVM ventilation and its widespread use in the United States underscore the need to improve ventilation practices during care provided by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. As part of that improvement, ETVs clearly have a role in the prehospital setting. These devices should be available on every ambulance, and the ability to use ETVs should be part of each EMS provider's skill set. Furthermore, all patients requiring emergency ventilation must be adequately monitored, including continuous monitoring of end-tidal carbon dioxide concentrations. As with any other skill, ventilation requires attention during initial training, continuing education and skill reinforcement, and quality review.

ing programs and the introduction of automated external defibrillators (AEDs), improving survival of patients who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest continues to be a challenge for the emergency medical services (EMS) provider.’ Experts in the field of prehospital emergency care* met in Dallas, Texas, February 25-27,1999, at the ”Turtle Creek Conference,” to discuss issues related to survival of victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Six current topics were considered: public access to defibrillation, management of difficult airways in the field, biphasic defibrillation, confirmation of airway placement, the use of intravenous (IV) amiodarone for shock refractory VF, and the all-advanced life support (ALS) vs tiered-response systems. Each session began with a presentation by experts in the respective subject, after which the attendees separated into small discussion groups for that topic. Each group, led by a team leader, formulated a consensus statement, which was presented to the entire group for further discussion and for approval as reflecting the thoughts of the group as a whole. The proceedings of the Turtle Creek Conference, as published in this issue of Prehospita1 Emergency Care, represent the presentations given by the experts and the consensus statements that evolved.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) involving manual external chest compression combined with artificial respiration was first described in 1960 by Kouwenhoven et al. (Kouwenhoven W, Jude JR, Knickerbocker GG. Closed-chest cardiac massage. JAMA. 1960; 173:1064-7). In the four decades since then, there have been no widely accepted alternatives for this technique. Even with the subsequent worldwide adoption of CPR and other advanced cardiac life support measures, long-term survival after prehospital cardiac arrest is still typically only 5%, to 10%. The performance of CPR must therefore be improved to increase the rate of long-term survival. Currently under development are new, alternative techniques such as interposed abdominal compression (IAC), active compression-decompression (ACD), pneumatic and nonpneumatic circumferential chest compression, and minimally invasive cardiac massage. Many of these newer techniques, compared with standard manual CPR, appear to provide superior vital organ blood flow and increased blood pressure. To date, only IAC (in-hospital only) and ACD have been shown to improve long-term survival in clinical studies. Circumferential chest compression and minimally invasive cardiac massage, on the other hand, have not yet been adequately tested in large clinical trials. Despite the difficulty and expense in studying these CPR techniques, additional research is necessary to evaluate their effectiveness in improving survival after sudden cardiac arrest.

Since the early 1970s, various publications and legislation have contributed to the development of emergency medical services (EMS) information systems and databases. Yet, even today, EMS systems vary in their ability to collect patient and systems data and to put these data to use. In addition, no means currently exists to easily link disparate EMS databases to allow analysis at local, state, and national levels. For this reason, the National Association of State EMS Directors is working with its federal partners at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Trauma and EMS program of the Health Resources and Services Administration's (HRSA's) Maternal and Child Health Bureau to develop a national EMS database. Such a database would be useful in developing nationwide EMS training curricula, evaluating patient and EMS system outcomes, facilitating research efforts, determining national fee schedules and reimbursement rates, and providing valuable information on other issues related to EMS care.

This paper provides a general overview of the current status of public-access defibrillation (PAD). The objectives are to describe the rationale for PAD, to define different levels of PAD as enumerated by the American Heart Association AED Task Force, to review the development of PAD over the past decade, and to discuss the cost-benefit of PAD, mainly from models and a few small implementations throughout the country. A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial (the Public Access Defibrillation Phase I Trial) has been designed to compare nontradi-tional targeted bystander CPR using AEDs with that not using AEDs. It is expected that the trial will resolve many of the uncertainties about the benefits of PAD.

(2002). L AW E NFORCEMENT A GENCY D EFIBRILLATION (LEA-D): P OSITION S TATEMENT AND B EST P RACTICES R ECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE N ATIONAL C ENTER FOR E ARLY D EFIBRILLATION. Prehospital Emergency Care: Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 346-347.

(2002). I NTRODUCTION TO THE T URTLE C REEK III P ROCEEDINGS. Prehospital Emergency Care: Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 71-71.