Challenges in Statewide Implementation of a Prehospital Evidence-Based Guideline: An Assessment of Barriers and Enablers in Five States.

BACKGROUND: Individual states, regions, and local emergency medical service (EMS) agencies are responsible for the development and implementation of prehospital patient care protocols. Many states lack model prehospital guidelines for managing common conditions. Recently developed national evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) may address this gap. Barriers to statewide dissemination and implementation of model guidelines have not been studied. The objective of this study was to examine barriers and enablers to dissemination and implementation of an evidence-based guideline for traumatic pain management across 5 states. METHODS: This study used mixed methods to evaluate the statewide dissemination and implementation of a prehospital EBG. The guideline provided pain assessment tools, recommended opiate medication dosing, and indications and contraindications for analgesia. Participating states were provided an implementation toolkit, standardized training materials, and a state-specific implementation plan. Outcomes were assessed via an electronic self-assessment tool in which states reported barriers and enablers to dissemination and implementation and information about changes in pain management practices in their states after implementation of the EBG. RESULTS: Of the 5 participating states, 3 reported dissemination of the guideline, one through a state model guideline process and 2 through regional EMS systems. Two states did not disseminate or implement the guideline. Of these, one state chose to utilize a locally developed guideline, and the other state did not perform guideline dissemination at the state level. Barriers to state implementation were the lack of authority at the state level to mandate protocols, technical challenges with learning management systems, and inability to track and monitor training and implementation at the agency level. Enablers included having a state/regional EMS office champion and the availability of an implementation toolkit. No participating states demonstrated an increase in opioid delivery to patients during the study period. CONCLUSION: Statewide dissemination and implementation of an EBG is complex with many challenges. Future efforts should consider the advantages of having statewide model or mandatory guidelines and the value of local champions and be aware of the challenges of a statewide learning management system and of tracking the success of implementation efforts.

Impact of an Offline Pain Management Protocol on Prehospital Provider Self-Efficacy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain in children is inadequately treated in the prehospital setting despite the reported recognition by prehospital providers (PHPs) of pain treatment as an important part of patient care. The impact of pediatric pain management protocol (PPP) implementation on PHP self-efficacy (SE), a measure congruent with performance, is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of PPP implementation and pain management education on PHP SE. METHODS: This was a prospective study evaluating the change in PHP SE after a PPP was implemented. Prehospital providers were randomized to 3 groups: protocol introduction alone, protocol introduction with education, and protocol introduction with education and a 3-month interim review. Prehospital provider SE was assessed for pain management given 3 age-based scenarios. Self-efficacy was measured with a tool that uses a ranked ordinal scale ranging from "certain I cannot do it" (0) to "completely certain I can do it" (100) for 10 pain management actions: pain assessment (3), medication administration (4), dosing (1), and reassessment (2). An averaged composite score (0-100) was calculated for each of the 3 age groups (adult, child, toddler). Paired-sample t tests compared post-PPP and 13-month scores to pre-PPP scores. RESULTS: Of 264 PHPs who completed initial surveys, 142 PHPs completed 13-month surveys. Ninety-three (65%) received education with protocol review, and 49 (35%) had protocol review only. Self-efficacy scores increased over the study period, most notably for pain assessment. This increase persisted at 13 months for child (6.6 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.4-11.8]) and toddler pain assessment (22.3 [95% CI, 16.4-28.3]). Composite SE scores increased immediately for all age groups (adult, 3.1 [95% CI, 1.3-4.9]; child, 6.1 [95% CI, 3.8-8.5]; toddler, 12.0 [95% CI, 9.5-14.5]) and persisted at 13 months for the toddler group alone (7.0 [95% CI, 4.3-9.7]). There was no difference between groups who received protocol review alone compared with those with education or education plus a 3-month interim review. CONCLUSIONS: After a pain management protocol was introduced, SE scores among PHPs increased immediately and remained elevated for some individual actions involved in pain management, most notably pain assessment. Prehospital provider pain assessment SE scores declined 13 months after protocol introduction for adults, but remained elevated compared with baseline for the pediatric age groups.

Reaching emergency medical services providers: is one survey mode better than another?

OBJECTIVES: To determine which mode of completing a survey yields the highest response rate among emergency medical services (EMS) providers, examine rural and urban differences, and determine the completeness of questions by mode of response. METHODS: A random sample of EMS providers was mailed one of the following: 1) a paper survey, with instructions to return it via the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope; 2) a letter, with instructions to complete the survey at the provided URL (Web address); or 3) a paper survey with a self-addressed, stamped envelope and a URL, with the option of choosing the mode of response. We compared response rates based on the three different modes. We conducted analysis of the number of skipped multiple-choice and open-ended questions by mode and content analysis of the open-ended questions. RESULTS: The paper-only option resulted in the highest response rate (40.4%, p = 0.003) compared with the response rates from Web-only and choice of mode. Overall, rural EMS providers responded at a higher rate than urban EMS providers (40.3% vs. 31.6%, respectively [p = 0.0002]). Web respondents were more likely to complete all the open-ended questions (p = 0.003). Almost a fourth (22.8%) of the paper respondents skipped multiple-choice questions. There was a pattern of more complete responses for open-ended questions among the Web-based participants, but this was not significant (p = 0.17). CONCLUSION: EMS providers seem to prefer a more traditional mode (paper) when responding to a survey. Rural providers are more likely to respond. Mode of response influences the number of skipped questions but does not impact the quality of open-ended answers.