Implementing Oral Systemic Corticosteroids for Pediatric Asthma into EMS Treatment Guidelines: A Qualitative Study.

Introduction: Respiratory distress accounts for approximately 14% of all pediatric emergency medical services (EMS) encounters, with asthma being the most common diagnosis. In the emergency department (ED), early administration of systemic corticosteroids decreases hospital admission and speeds resolution of symptoms. For children treated by EMS, there is an opportunity for earlier corticosteroid administration. Most EMS agencies carry intravenous (IV) corticosteroids; yet given the challenges and low rates of EMS pediatric IV placement, oral corticosteroids (OCS) are a logical alternative. However, previous single-agency studies showed low adoption of OCS. Therefore, qualitative study of OCS implementation by EMS is warranted.Methods: This study's objective was to explore uptake and implementation of OCS for pediatric asthma treatment through semi-structured interviews and focus groups with EMS clinicians. We thematically coded and analyzed transcripts using the domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify barriers and facilitators that most strongly influenced OCS implementation and adoption by EMS clinicians.Results: We conducted five focus groups with a total of ten EMS clinicians from four EMS systems: one urban region with multiple agencies that hosted two focus groups, one suburban agency, one rural agency, and a mixed rural/suburban agency. Of the 36 CFIR constructs, 31 were addressed in the interviews. Most constructs coded were in the CFIR domains of the inner setting and characteristics of individuals, indicating that EMS agency factors as well as EMS clinician characteristics were impactful for implementation. Barriers to OCS adoption included unfamiliarity and inexperience with pediatric patients and pediatric dosing, and lack of knowledge of the benefits of corticosteroids. Facilitators included friendly competition with colleagues, having a pediatric medical director, and feedback from receiving EDs on patient outcomes.Conclusion: This qualitative focus group study of OCS implementation by EMS clinicians for the treatment of pediatric asthma found many barriers and facilitators that mapped to the structure of EMS agencies and characteristics of individual EMS clinicians. To fully implement this evidence-based intervention for pediatric asthma, more education on the intervention is required, and EMS clinicians will benefit from further pediatric training.

A Statewide Analysis of EMS' Pediatric Transport Destination Decisions.

Introduction: Deciding where to transport a patient is a key decision made by emergency medical services (EMS), particularly for children because pediatric hospital resources are regionalized. Since evidence-based guidelines for pediatric transport destinations are being developed, the purpose of this study was to use a large statewide EMS database to describe current patterns of EMS providers' transport destination decisions for pediatric patients.Methods: This is a retrospective study of pediatric transports from 2011-2016 in EMS Tracking and Reporting System (EMSTARS), Florida's statewide EMS database. We included patients greater than 1 day and less than or equal to 18 years who were primary EMS scene transports. Our primary outcome variable was 'reason for choosing destination.' We performed descriptive and comparative analysis between closest facility and all other 'reason for choosing destination' choices. We used geospatial analysis to examine destination choice in urban and rural counties.Results: Our final study sample was 446,274, and 48.2% of patients had closest facility as their 'reason for choosing destination.' The next largest category was patient/family choice (154,035 patients, 35.7%). Closest facility patients were older (median age 12 versus 10 years, p < 0.0001) and had shorter median EMS transport times (11.3 versus 15 minutes, p < 0.0001) compared to all other destination decisions. Notably, 60% of respiratory distress patients' and 44% of seizure patients' reason for choosing destination was something other than closest facility. Geospatial analysis revealed that fewer rural patients were documented as closest facility compared to urban (43.9% versus 47%, p < 0.0001). Correspondingly, more rural patients' destination decision was patient/family choice than urban patients (36.3% versus 34.3%, p < 0.0001).Conclusions: This large, statewide study describes EMS' reason for choosing destination for pediatric patients. We found that just under half of patients were documented as closest facility, and over one-third as patient/family choice. Significant differences in destination reasons were noted for rural versus urban counties. This study can help those currently developing pediatric EMS destination guidelines by revealing a high proportion of patient/family choice and identifying conditions with high proportions of destination reasons other than closest facility.