Head Injury Evaluation and Ambulance Diagnosis (HOME) Study protocol: a feasibility study assessing the implementation of the Canadian CT Head Rule in the prehospital setting.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a common presentation in the prehospital environment. At present, paramedics do not routinely use tools to identify low-risk patients who could be left at scene or taken to a local hospital rather than a major trauma centre. The Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) was developed to guide the use of CT imaging in hospital. It has not been evaluated in the prehospital setting. We aim to address this gap by evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the CCHR to patients and paramedics, and the feasibility of conducting a full-scale clinical trial of its use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will recruit adult patients who are being transported to an emergency department (ED) by ambulance after suffering a mild TBI. Paramedics will prospectively collect data for the CCHR. All patients will be transported to the ED, where deferred consent will be taken and the treating clinician will reassess the CCHR, blinded to paramedic interpretation. The primary clinical outcome will be neurosurgically significant TBI. Feasibility outcomes include recruitment and attrition rates. We will assess acceptability of the CCHR to paramedics using the Ottawa Acceptability of Decision Rules Instrument. Interobserver reliability of the CCHR will be assessed between paramedics and the treating clinician in the ED. Participating paramedics and patients will be invited to participate in semistructured interviews to explore the acceptability of trial processes and facilitators and barriers to the use of the CCHR in practice. Data will be analysed thematically. We anticipate recruiting approximately 100 patients over 6 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Health Research Authority and the Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 22/NW/0358). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and will be incorporated into a doctoral thesis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN92566288.

Research priorities for the management of major trauma: an international priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine research priorities for the management of major trauma, representing the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals. DESIGN/SETTING: An international research priority-setting partnership. PARTICIPANTS: People who have experienced major trauma, their carers and relatives, and healthcare professionals involved in treating patients after major trauma. The scope included chest, abdominal and pelvic injuries as well as major bleeding, multiple injuries and those that threaten life or limb. METHODS: A multiphase priority-setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 24 months (November 2021-October 2023). An international survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties which were then combined into several indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been sufficiently answered. A second international survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 19 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities. RESULTS: A total of 1572 uncertainties, submitted by 417 respondents (including 132 patients and carers), were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 53 unique indicative questions, of which all 53 were judged to be true uncertainties after reviewing the existing evidence. 373 people (including 115 patients and carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 19 questions were taken to a final consensus workshop between patients, carers and healthcare professionals. At the final workshop, a consensus was reached for the ranking of the top 10 questions. CONCLUSIONS: The top 10 research priorities for major trauma include patient-centred questions regarding pain relief and prehospital management, multidisciplinary working, novel technologies, rehabilitation and holistic support. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research major trauma around the globe.

Developing an alternative care pathway for emergency ambulance responses for adults with epilepsy: A Discrete Choice Experiment to understand which configuration service users prefer. Part of the COLLABORATE project.

INTRODUCTION: To identify service users' preferences for an alternative care pathway for adults with epilepsy presenting to the ambulance service. METHODS: Extensive formative work (qualitative, survey and knowledge exchange) informed the design of a stated preference discrete choice experiment (DCE). This hypothetical survey was hosted online and consisted of 12 binary choices of alternative care pathways described in terms of: the paramedic's access to medical records/ 'care plan', what happens next (described in terms of conveyance), time, availability of epilepsy specialists today, general practitioner (GP) notification and future contact with epilepsy specialists. DCE scenarios were described as: (i) typical seizure at home. (ii) typical seizure in public, (iii) atypical seizure. Respondents were recruited by a regional English ambulance service and by national public adverts. Participants were randomised to complete 2 of the 3 DCEs. RESULTS: People with epilepsy (PWE; n = 427) and friends/family (n = 167) who completed the survey were representative of the target population. PWE preferred paramedics to have access to medical records, non-conveyance, to avoid lengthy episodes of care, availability of epilepsy specialists today, GP notification, and contact with epilepsy specialists within 2-3 weeks. Significant others (close family members or friends) preferred PWE experiencing an atypical seizure to be conveyed to an Urgent Treatment Centre and preferred shorter times. Optimal configuration of services from service users' perspective far out ranked current practice (rank 230/288 possible configurations). DISCUSSION: Preferences differ to current practice but have minimal variation by seizure type or stakeholder. Further work on feasibility of these pathways in England, and potentially beyond, is required.

Route of drug administration in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PARAMEDIC-3).

Aims: The PARAMEDIC-3 trial evaluates the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an intraosseous first strategy, compared with an intravenous first strategy, for drug administration in adults who have sustained an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods: PARAMEDIC-3 is a pragmatic, allocation concealed, open-label, multi-centre, superiority randomised controlled trial. It will recruit 15,000 patients across English and Welsh ambulance services. Adults who have sustained an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are individually randomised to an intraosseous access first strategy or intravenous access first strategy in a 1:1 ratio through an opaque, sealed envelope system. The randomised allocation determines the route used for the first two attempts at vascular access. Participants are initially enrolled under a deferred consent model.The primary clinical-effectiveness outcome is survival at 30-days. Secondary outcomes include return of spontaneous circulation, neurological functional outcome, and health-related quality of life. Participants are followed-up to six-months following cardiac arrest. The primary health economic outcome is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Conclusion: The PARAMEDIC-3 trial will provide key information on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of drug route in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Trial registration: ISRCTN14223494, registered 16/08/2021, prospectively registered.

Should video laryngoscopy or direct laryngoscopy be used for adults undergoing endotracheal intubation in the pre-hospital setting? A critical appraisal of a systematic review.

The safety and utility of endotracheal intubation by paramedics in the United Kingdom is a matter of debate. Considering the controversy surrounding the safety of paramedic-performed endotracheal intubation, any interventions that enhance patient safety should be evaluated for implementation based on solid evidence of their effectiveness. A systematic review performed by Hansel and colleagues (2022) sought to assess compare video laryngoscopes against direct laryngoscopes in clinical practice. This commentary aims to critically appraise the methods used within the review by Hansel et al (2022) and expand upon the findings in the context of clinical practice.

Impact of COVID-19 on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest care processes.

Early bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, use of defibrillators (including automated external defibrillators) and timely treatment by emergency medical services are known to increase the chances of survival for a patient experiencing an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA); however, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on this is unclear from examining previous literature. This commentary critically appraises a recent systematic review and meta-analysis which assesses the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on pre-hospital care for OHCA.

Prehospital triage tools in major trauma: a critical appraisal of a systematic review.

Effective triage is critical to ensure patients suffering major trauma are identified and access a pathway to definitive major trauma care, typically provided in a major trauma centre as part of an established major trauma system. The pre-hospital triage of trauma patients often relies upon the use of major trauma triage tools; this commentary critically appraises a recent systematic review which sought to evaluate and compare the accuracy of pre-hospital triage tools for major trauma.

Prehospital Airway Management.

The prehospital emergency airway management is a key moderating factor for patient survival and mortality rates. There has been much debate around the optimum method of prehospital emergency airway management. This commentary critically appraises a recent systematic review which assesses the harms and benefits of three different airway management strategies for a range of emergency clinical scenarios.