Team training program's impact on medication administration, teamwork and patient safety culture in an ambulance service (TEAM-AMB): a longitudinal multimethod study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Medication administration errors (MAEs) have the potential for significant patient harm, and the frequency of MAEs in the ambulance services is not well known. Effective teamwork is paramount for providing safe and effective patient care, especially in a time-sensitive, high-risk environment such as the ambulance services. Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety (TeamSTEPPS) is an evidence-based team training programme that, to our knowledge, has not been studied in the ambulance services previously. TeamSTEPPS is based on the five principles: team structure, communication, leadership, situation monitoring and mutual support. This study aims to advance the knowledge of the medication administration process in the ambulance services and study the impact of a team training programme on the frequency of MAEs, and the perception of teamwork, and patient safety culture. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study uses a longitudinal multimethod design to evaluate medication administration and the implementation of the team training programme TeamSTEPPS in an ambulance service. A review of electronic patient journals 6 months prior to the intervention, and 12 months after the intervention will provide data on the frequency of MAEs. Focus group interviews and questionnaires will be carried out before and after the intervention to describe the perception of teamwork and patient safety culture among ambulance professionals. Observations, individual interviews and a review of guidelines will be conducted in the first and second quarters of 2022 to study the medication administration process in ambulance services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was reviewed by the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics Central Norway and approved by the Hospital Trust data protection officer, and the head of the Prehospital Division at the Hospital Trust. The data material will be managed confidentially and stored according to regulations. The results will be disseminated through scientific papers, reports, conference presentations, popular press, and social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05244928.

Pre-hospital guidelines for CPR-Induced Consciousness (CPRIC): A scoping review.

Background: CPR-Induced Consciousness is an emerging phenomenon with a paucity of consensus guidelines from peak resuscitative bodies. Local prehospital services have had to implement their own CPR-Induced Consciousness guidelines. This scoping review aims to identify prehospital CPR-Induced Consciousness guidelines and compare or contrast their management options. Objective: The purpose of this scoping review is to identify and compare as many prehospital CPR-Induced Consciousness guidelines as feasible, highlight common management trends, and discuss the factors that might impact CPR-Induced Consciousness guidelines and the management trends identified. Design: To search for prehospital CPR-Induced Consciousness guidelines, a bibliographical search of five databases was undertaken (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, and CINAHL plus). Also included was a grey literature search arm, comprised of four search strategies: 1. Customised Google search, 2. Hand searching of targeted websites, 3. Grey literature databases, 4. Consultation with subject experts. Results: Our search extracted 23 prehospital CPR-Induced Consciousness guidelines and one good practise statement from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Of the 23 prehospital guidelines available, we identified 20 different ways of treating CPR-Induced Consciousness. Midazolam was the most frequently used drug to treat CPR-Induced Consciousness (14/23, 61%), followed by Ketamine (11/23, 48%) and Fentanyl (9/23, 39%). Conclusion: Prehospital CPR-Induced Consciousness guidelines are both exceptionally uncommon and vary substantially from each other. This has a flow-on effect towards data collection and only serves to continue CPR-Induced Consciousness's relatively unknown status surrounding both knowledge of, and the effect CPR-Induced Consciousness treatment has on cardiac arrest outcomes.

Does the Norwegian emergency medical dispatch classification as non-urgent predict no need for pre-hospital medical treatment? An observational study.

BACKGROUND: The number of ambulance call-outs in Norway is increasing owing to societal changes and increased demand from the public. Together with improved but more expensive education of ambulance staff, this leads to increased costs and staffing shortages. We wanted to study whether the current dispatch triage tools could reliably identify patients who only required transport, and not pre-hospital medical care. This could allow selection of such patients for designated transport units, freeing up highly trained ambulance staff to attend patients in greater need. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was used, drawing on all electronic and paper records in our ambulance service from four random days in 2012. The patients were classified into acuity groups, based on Emergency Medical Dispatch codes, and pre-hospital interventions were extracted from the Patient Report Forms. RESULTS: Of the 1489 ambulance call-outs included in this study, 82 PRFs (5 %) were missing. A highly significant association was found between acuity group and recorded pre-hospital intervention (p ≤ 0.001). We found no correlation between gender, distance to hospital, age and pre-hospital interventions. Ambulances staffed by paramedics performed more interventions (234/917, 26 %) than those with emergency medical technicians (42/282, 15 %). The strongest predictor for needing pre-hospital interventions was found to be the emergency medical dispatch acuity descriptor. DISCUSSION: This study has demonstrated that the Norwegian dispatch system is able to correctly identify patients who do not need pre-hospital interventions. Patients with a low acuity code had a very low level of pre-hospital interventions. Evaluation of adherence to protocol in the Emergency Medical Dispatch is not possible due to the inherent need for medical experience in the triage process. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the Norwegian dispatch tool (Norwegian index) as a predictor of patients who do not need pre-hospital interventions.