Search

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, ambulance divert in our EMS system reached critical levels. We hypothesized that eliminating ambulance divert would not be associated with an increase in the average number of daily ambulance arrivals. Our study objective was to quantify the EMS and emergency department (ED) effects of eliminating ambulance divert during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Regional hospital divert data were obtained for the 10-county Twin Cities metro from MNTrac, a state-supported online system designed to allow hospitals to indicate their divert status to EMS. ED metrics are reported for a single Level I trauma center and were obtained by a deidentified data pull from our electronic medical record covering the 12 months prior to the elimination of divert (2021) and the 12 months after divert elimination (2022). The decision to eliminate divert occurred in November 2021, based on data available through October, with an implementation date of January 2022. The primary study outcome was to quantify the effect of the elimination of divert on the number of ambulances arriving per day at the study hospital., Results: Regional utilization of ambulance divert increased steadily by 859% from January to October 2021 when 355 individual divert events occurred, totaling 809 h (34 days). There was no significant difference in the number of ambulances that arrived to the study hospital in 2021 (30,774) vs 2022 (30,421) p  = 0.15. As compared to 2021, in 2022 there was no significant increase in mean ambulance arrivals per day (84/day vs 83/day, p  = 0.08), time to room Emergency Severity Index level 2 (ESI) patients (28 min vs 28 min, p  = 0.90), or time to obtain emergent head CT in acute "code stroke" patients (12 min vs 12 min, p = 0.15). Ambulance turnaround interval in the ED did not appreciably increase (16 min vs 17 min, p  = 0.15)., Conclusion: Elimination of ambulance divert was not associated with increases in the number of mean daily ambulance arrivals or EMS turnaround intervals, delays in ESI 2 patients being placed in beds, or prolonged time to head CT in stroke code patients.

Study Objective: Invasively monitoring blood pressure through the IO device has not been thoroughly demonstrated. This study attempted to establish baseline values of IO pressure in a healthy human population., Methods: This was a prospective, healthy volunteer, observational study. Participants had two IO devices placed (humerus and tibia), and participant IO pressures, vital signs, and pain scores were monitored for up to 60 minutes. Participants were contacted at 24-hours and 7 days post-testing to assess for adverse events. Summary statistics were calculated for systolic, diastolic, and mean humeral and tibial IO pressure. The ratio of IO to non-invasive blood pressure was calculated, and Bland Altman plots were created. The slope (linear) of the mean humeral and the tibial IO pressures were also calculated., Results: Fifteen subjects were enrolled between April and July 2015. Fourteen of 15 humeral IOs were placed successfully (93.3%) and all 15 of the tibial IOs were placed successfully. Mean tibial systolic, diastolic, and mean IO pressure were 55.8 ± 27.9, 49.3 ± 27.1, and 48.4 ± 29.4 mm Hg, respectively. Humeral systolic, diastolic, and mean IO pressure were 32.9 ± 16.0, 27.4 ± 15.2, and 24.5 ± 14.3 mm Hg. The mean tibial IO pressure was 52.5% ± 32.0% of external cuff pressure ratio. The mean humeral IO pressure was 26.5% ± 15.2% of the external mean blood pressure. The Bland Altman plots showed an inconsistent relationship between the systolic and diastolic cuff pressure and the IO pressures. We observed a 1% per minute decrease in IO pressure from the initial placement until the final reading., Conclusions: Intraosseous pressure readings can be obtained in healthy human volunteers. However, absolute IOP values were not consistent between subjects. Future research may determine how IO pressure can be used to guide therapy in ill and injured patients.

Objectives: The primary aims of this study were to determine whether the frequency of placement, type of advanced airway, and settings of advanced airway placement (clinical vs. field) have changed for paramedic students over the last 11 years, and to describe regional differences regarding the same set of variables., Methods: This study was a retrospective review of prospectively reported airway procedures documented by paramedic students in Fisdap ( http://www.fisdap.net ). Students were included if they graduated from a paramedic program, had procedure entries verified by a preceptor, and provided consent for research. Exclusion criteria included students who had a total number of airway placements ≥2 standard deviations from the mean or had 0 airway placements recorded, and programs with <10 graduating students total over the study period. Airway device types and educational settings were descriptively compared over the 11-year study period by year and region., Results: A total of 8,934 paramedic student records were reviewed, with 2,811 excluded based on a priori criteria, leaving 6,123 records for analysis. In each year, the median number of airway devices placed per student was greater in the clinical setting. Endotracheal intubation (ETI) was more common than alternative airway placement in both the field and clinical settings. The median number of clinical ETIs per student has remained relatively constant at 7. The median number of field ETIs per student ranged from 0 to 1 over the study period, with a median alternative airway placement rate of 0 for both clinical and field settings. For all regions, the majority of procedures were performed in a clinical environment. The median number of clinical alternative airway device placements was 0 for all regions. The number of clinical ETIs ranged from 5 to 11 per student, with the highest number of ETIs per student in the West North Central and New England regions and the lowest in the West South Central and East South Central regions., Conclusion: Paramedic students gain the majority of their advanced airway experience in the clinical setting. ETI remains more common than alternative airway placement, although there is significant geographic variation in the number of ETIs per student. High rates of clinical intubations do not correlate with high rates of field intubations.