A cross-sectional exploratory study of knowledge, attitudes, and practices of emergency health care providers in the assessment of child maltreatment in Maputo, Mozambique.

BACKGROUND: In Mozambique, and other low-income countries (LICs), there is little information on the burden of child maltreatment (CM). Emergency care services (ECS) play an important role in recognizing, treating, and intervening in situations of CM. We aim to identify knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding CM among health care providers in ECS at Mavalane General Hospital in Maputo, Mozambique. METHODS: This exploratory cross-sectional study evaluates the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of health care providers to diagnose and treat cases of CM. A 25 min, pilot-tested verbal interview questionnaire was administered to 49 physicians and nurses working in ECS at Mavalane General Hospital. Interviews were completed between October-November 2010. Data were managed and analyzed in SPSS 14.0 and descriptive statistics were generated. RESULTS: Of 49 health care providers, 83.6% reporting receiving no, or very little CM education or training. Only 61.2% had knowledge of physical abuse as a main form of child maltreatment and 38.8% were able to identify corresponding symptoms of physical abuse. Sexual abuse as a main form of CM was mentioned by 26.5 and 2% cited its symptoms. While 87.7% of health care providers strongly agreed or agreed that they hold an important role in preventing CM, 51.1% also strongly disagreed or disagreed that they feel confident diagnosing and treating CM cases. In regards to follow-up, 14.3% strongly disagreed or disagreed that they know where to refer victims for further follow-up and an additional 14.3% did not know whether they agreed or disagreed. CONCLUSION: This study revealed knowledge gaps in emergency health care provider knowledge of the main forms of CM and their symptoms. The fact that a majority of health care providers in our sample did not receive information specific to CM in their medical education and training could explain this gap, as well as their unawareness of where to refer victims. Given that health care providers believe they play an important role in identifying and treating CM, future research should focus on raising physician awareness of CM and developing education and training materials grounded in cultural contexts to build response capacity in Mozambique and other LICs.

Multiple Naloxone Administrations Among Emergency Medical Service Providers is Increasing.

BACKGROUND: Opioid overdoses are at epidemic levels in the United States. Emergency Medical Service (EMS) providers may administer naloxone to restore patient breathing and prevent respiratory arrest. There was a need for contemporary data to examine the number of naloxone administrations in an EMS encounter. METHODS: Using data from the National Emergency Medical Services Information System, we examined data from 2012-5 to determine trends in patients receiving multiple naloxone administrations (MNAs). Logistic regression including demographic, clinical, and operational information was used to examine factors associated with MNA. RESULTS: Among all events where naloxone was administered only 16.7% of the 911 calls specifically identified the medical emergency as a drug ingestion or poisoning event. The percentage of patients receiving MNA increased from 14.5% in 2012 to 18.2% in 2015, which represents a 26% increase in MNA in 4 years. Patients aged 20-29 had the highest percentage of MNA (21.1%). Patients in the Northeast and the Midwest had the highest relative MNA (Chi Squared = 539.5, p < 0.01 and Chi Squared = 351.2, p < 0.01, respectively). The logistic regression model showed that the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for MNA were greatest among people who live in the Northeast (aOR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.13-1.22) and for men (aOR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.10-1.16), but lower for suburban and rural areas (aOR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.72-0.80 and aOR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.80-0.89) and lowest for wilderness areas (aOR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.68-0.84). Higher adjusted odds of MNA occurred when an advanced life support (ALS 2) level of service was provided compared to basic life support (BLS) ambulances (aOR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.45-3.16) and when the dispatch complaint indicated there was a drug poisoning event (aOR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.09-1.16). Reported layperson naloxone administration prior to EMS arrival was rare (1%). CONCLUSION: This study shows that frequency of MNA is growing over time and is regionally dependent. MNA may be a barometer of the potency of the opioid involved in the overdose. The increase in MNA provides support for a dosage review. Better identification of opioid related events in the dispatch system could lead to a better match of services with patient needs.

Bystander Intervention Prior to The Arrival of Emergency Medical Services: Comparing Assistance across Types of Medical Emergencies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the situational circumstances associated with bystander interventions to render aid during a medical emergency. METHODS: This study examined 16.2 million Emergency Medical Service (EMS) events contained within the National Emergency Medical Services Information System. The records of patients following a 9-1-1 call for emergency medical assistance were analyzed using logistic regression to determine what factors influenced bystander interventions. The dependent variable of the model was whether or not a bystander intervened. RESULTS: EMS providers recorded bystander assistance 11% of the time. The logistic regression model correctly predicted bystander intervention occurrence 71.4% of the time. Bystanders were more likely to intervene when the patient was male (aOR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.12-1.3) and if the patient was older (progressive aOR = 1.10, 1.46 age group 20-29 through age group 60-99). Bystanders were less likely to intervene in rural areas compared to urban areas (aOR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.58-0.59). The highest likelihood of bystander intervention occurred in a residential institution (aOR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.85-1.86) and the lowest occurred on a street or a highway (aOR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.95-0.96). Using death as a reference group, bystanders were most likely to intervene when the patient had cardiac distress/chest pain (aOR = 11.38, 95% CI = 10.93-11.86), followed by allergic reaction (aOR = 7.63, 95% CI = 7.30-7.99), smoke inhalation (aOR = 6.65, 95% CI = 5.98-7.39), and respiration arrest/distress (aOR = 6.43, 95% CI = 6.17-6.70). A traumatic injury was the most commonly recorded known event, and it was also associated with a relatively high level of bystander intervention (aOR = 5.81, 95% CI = 5.58-6.05). The type of injury/illness that prompted the lowest likelihood of bystander assistance was Sexual Assault/Rape (aOR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.32-1.84) followed by behavioral/psychiatric disorder (aOR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.57-1.71). CONCLUSION: Bystander intervention varies greatly on situational factors and the type of medical emergency. A higher risk of patient death is likely to prompt bystander action. These novel study results can lead to more effective first aid training programs. KEY WORDS: bystander; EMS; rural; cardiac distress; trauma.

Hospitalized Traumatic Brain Injury: Low Trauma Center Utilization and High Interfacility Transfers among Older Adults.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines suggest that Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) related hospitalizations are best treated at Level I or II trauma centers because of continuous neurosurgical care in these settings. This population-based study examines TBI hospitalization treatment paths by age groups. METHODS: Trauma center utilization and transfers by age groups were captured by examining the total number of TBI hospitalizations from National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the number of TBI hospitalizations and transfers in the Trauma Data Bank National Sample Population (NTDB-NSP). TBI cases were defined using diagnostic codes. RESULTS: Of the 351,555 TBI related hospitalizations in 2012, 47.9% (n = 168,317) were directly treated in a Level I or II trauma center, and an additional 20.3% (n = 71,286) were transferred to a Level I or II trauma center. The portion of the population treated at a trauma center (68.2%) was significantly lower than the portion of the U.S. population who has access to a major trauma center (90%). Further, nearly half of all transfers to a Level I or II trauma center were adults aged 55 and older (p < 0.001) and that 20.2% of pediatric patients arrive by non-ambulatory means. CONCLUSION: Utilization of trauma center resources for hospitalized TBIs may be low considering the established lower mortality rate associated with treatment at Level I or II trauma centers. The higher transfer rate for older adults may suggest rapid decline amid an unrecognized initial need for a trauma center care. A better understanding of hospital destination decision making is needed for patients with TBI.

Disparity in naloxone administration by emergency medical service providers and the burden of drug overdose in US rural communities.

OBJECTIVES: We determined the factors that affect naloxone (Narcan) administration in drug overdoses, including the certification level of emergency medical technicians (EMTs). METHODS: In 2012, 42 states contributed all or a portion of their ambulatory data to the National Emergency Medical Services Information System. We used a logistic regression model to measure the association between naloxone administration and emergency medical services certification level, age, gender, geographic location, and patient primary symptom. RESULTS: The odds of naloxone administration were much higher among EMT-intermediates than among EMT-basics (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 5.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.5, 6.5). Naloxone use was higher in suburban areas than in urban areas (AOR = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.3, 1.5), followed by rural areas (AOR = 1.23; 95% CI = 1.1, 1.3). Although the odds of naloxone administration were 23% higher in rural areas than in urban areas, the opioid drug overdose rate is 45% higher in rural communities. CONCLUSIONS: Naloxone is less often administered by EMT-basics, who are more common in rural areas. In most states, the scope-of-practice model prohibits naloxone administration by basic EMTs. Reducing this barrier could help prevent drug overdose death.

A consensus-based gold standard for the evaluation of mass casualty triage systems.

INTRODUCTION: Accuracy and effectiveness analyses of mass casualty triage systems are limited because there are no gold standard definitions for each of the triage categories. Until there is agreement on which patients should be identified by each triage category, it will be impossible to calculate sensitivity and specificity or to compare accuracy between triage systems. OBJECTIVE: To develop a consensus-based, functional gold standard definition for each mass casualty triage category. METHODS: National experts were recruited through the lead investigators' contacts and their suggested contacts. Key informant interviews were conducted to develop a list of potential criteria for defining each triage category. Panelists were interviewed in order of their availability until redundancy of themes was achieved. Panelists were blinded to each other's responses during the interviews. A modified Delphi survey was developed with the potential criteria identified during the interview and delivered to all recruited experts. In the early rounds, panelists could add, remove, or modify criteria. In the final rounds edits were made to the criteria until at least 80% agreement was achieved. RESULTS: Thirteen national and local experts were recruited to participate in the project. Six interviews were conducted. Three rounds of voting were performed, with 12 panelists participating in the first round, 12 in the second round, and 13 in the third round. After the first two rounds, the criteria were modified according to respondent suggestions. In the final round, over 90% agreement was achieved for all but one criterion. A single e-mail vote was conducted on edits to the final criterion and consensus was achieved. CONCLUSION: A consensus-based, functional gold standard definition for each mass casualty triage category was developed. These gold standard definitions can be used to evaluate the accuracy of mass casualty triage systems after an actual incident, during training, or for research.

Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, 2011.

In the United States, injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1-44 years. In 2008, approximately 30 million injuries were serious enough to require the injured person to visit a hospital emergency department (ED); 5.4 million (18%) of these injured patients were transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). On arrival at the scene of an injury, the EMS provider must determine the severity of injury, initiate management of the patient's injuries, and decide the most appropriate destination hospital for the individual patient. These destination decisions are made through a process known as "field triage," which involves an assessment not only of the physiology and anatomy of injury but also of the mechanism of the injury and special patient and system considerations. Since 1986, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) has provided guidance for the field triage process through its "Field Triage Decision Scheme." This guidance was updated with each version of the decision scheme (published in 1986, 1990, 1993, and 1999). In 2005, CDC, with financial support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, collaborated with ACS-COT to convene the initial meetings of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage (the Panel) to revise the decision scheme; the revised version was published in 2006 by ACS-COT (American College of Surgeons. Resources for the optimal care of the injured patient: 2006. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2006). In 2009, CDC published a detailed description of the scientific rationale for revising the field triage criteria (CDC. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage. MMWR 2009;58[No. RR-1]). In 2011, CDC reconvened the Panel to review the 2006 Guidelines in the context of recently published literature, assess the experiences of states and local communities working to implement the Guidelines, and recommend any needed changes or modifications to the Guidelines. This report describes the dissemination and impact of the 2006 Guidelines; outlines the methodology used by the Panel for its 2011 review; explains the revisions and modifications to the physiologic, anatomic, mechanism-of-injury, and special considerations criteria; updates the schematic of the 2006 Guidelines; and provides the rationale used by the Panel for these changes. This report is intended to help prehospital-care providers in their daily duties recognize individual injured patients who are most likely to benefit from specialized trauma center resources and is not intended as a mass casualty or disaster triage tool. The Panel anticipates a review of these Guidelines approximately every 5 years.

A review of traumatic brain injury trauma center visits meeting physiologic criteria from The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Field Triage Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) represents a serious subset of injuries among persons in the United States, and prehospital care of these injuries can mitigate both the morbidity and the mortality in patients who suffer from these injuries. Guidelines for triage of injured patients have been set forth by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) in cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). These guidelines include physiologic criteria, such as the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, systolic blood pressure, and respiratory rate, which should be used in determining triage of an injured patient. OBJECTIVES: This study examined the numbers of visits at level I and II trauma centers by patients with a diagnosed TBI to determine the prevalence of those meeting physiologic criteria from the ACS-COT/CDC guidelines and to determine the extent of mortality among this patient population. METHODS: The data for this study were taken from the 2007 National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) National Sample Program (NSP). This data set is a nationally representative sample of visits to level I and II trauma centers across the United States and is funded by the American College of Surgeons. Estimates of demographic characteristics, physiologic measures, and death were made for this study population using both chi-square analyses and adjusted logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: The analyses demonstrated that although many people who sustain a TBI and were taken to a level I or II trauma center did not meet the physiologic criteria, those who did meet the physiologic criteria had significantly higher odds of death than those who did not meet the criteria. After controlling for age, gender, race, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and length of stay in the hospital, persons who had a GCS score ≤13 were 17 times more likely to die than TBI patients who had a higher GCS score (odds ratio [OR] 17.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.7-28.3). Other physiologic criteria also demonstrated significant odds of death. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the validity of the ACS-COT/CDC physiologic criteria in this population and stress the importance of prehospital triage of patients with TBI in the hopes of reducing both the morbidity and the mortality resulting from this injury.

Large cost savings realized from the 2006 Field Triage Guideline: reduction in overtriage in U.S. trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Ambulance transport of injured patients to the most appropriate medical care facility is an important decision. Trauma centers are designed and staffed to treat severely injured patients and are increasingly burdened by cases involving less-serious injury. Yet, a cost evaluation of the Field Triage national guideline has never been performed. OBJECTIVES: To examine the potential cost savings associated with overtriage for the 1999 and 2006 versions of the Field Triage Guideline. METHODS: Data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Trauma Databank (NTDB) produced estimates of injury-related ambulatory transports and exposure to the Field Triage guideline. Case costs were approximated using a cost distribution curve of all cases found in the NTDB. A two-way sensitivity analysis was also used to determine the impact of data uncertainty on medical costs and the reduction in trauma center visits (12%) after implementation of the 2006 Field Triage guideline compared with the 1999 Field Triage guideline. RESULTS: At a 40% overtriage rate, the average case cost was $16,434. The cost average of 44.2% reduction in case costs if patients were treated in a non-trauma center compared with a trauma center was found in the literature. Implementation of the 2006 Field Triage guideline produced a $7,264 cost savings per case, or an estimated annual national savings of $568,000,000. CONCLUSION: Application of the 2006 Field Triage guideline helps emergency medical services personnel manage overtriage in trauma centers, which could result in a significant national cost savings.

Guidelines for field triage of injured patients. Recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage.

In the United States, injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1--44 years, and the approximately 800,000 emergency medical services (EMS) providers have a substantial impact on the care of injured persons and on public health. At an injury scene, EMS providers determine the severity of injury, initiate medical management, and identify the most appropriate facility to which to transport the patient through a process called "field triage." Although basic emergency services generally are consistent across hospital emergency departments (EDs), certain hospitals have additional expertise, resources, and equipment for treating severely injured patients. Such facilities, called "trauma centers," are classified from Level I (centers providing the highest level of trauma care) to Level IV (centers providing initial trauma care and transfer to a higher level of trauma care if necessary) depending on the scope of resources and services available. The risk for death of a severely injured person is 25% lower if the patient receives care at a Level I trauma center. However, not all patients require the services of a Level I trauma center; patients who are injured less severely might be served better by being transported to a closer ED capable of managing milder injuries. Transferring all injured patients to Level I trauma centers might overburden the centers, have a negative impact on patient outcomes, and decrease cost effectiveness. In 1986, the American College of Surgeons developed the Field Triage Decision Scheme (Decision Scheme), which serves as the basis for triage protocols for state and local EMS systems across the United States. The Decision Scheme is an algorithm that guides EMS providers through four decision steps (physiologic, anatomic, mechanism of injury, and special considerations) to determine the most appropriate destination facility within the local trauma care system. Since its initial publication in 1986, the Decision Scheme has been revised four times. In 2005, with support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, CDC began facilitating revision of the Decision Scheme by hosting a series of meetings of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, which includes injury-care providers, public health professionals, automotive industry representatives, and officials from federal agencies. The Panel reviewed relevant literature, presented its findings, and reached consensus on necessary revisions. The revised Decision Scheme was published in 2006. This report describes the process and rationale used by the Expert Panel to revise the Decision Scheme.