Evidence-Based Guidelines for Prehospital Airway Management: Methods and Resources Document.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency airway management is a common and critical task EMS clinicians perform in the prehospital setting. A new set of evidence-based guidelines (EBG) was developed to assist in prehospital airway management decision-making. We aim to describe the methods used to develop these EBGs. METHODS: The EBG development process leveraged the four key questions from a prior systematic review conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to develop 22 different population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) questions. Evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and tabulated into the summary of findings tables. The technical expert panel then used a rigorous systematic method to generate evidence to decision tables, including leveraging the PanelVoice function of GRADEpro. This process involved a review of the summary of findings tables, asynchronous member judging, and online facilitated panel discussions to generate final consensus-based recommendations. RESULTS: The panel completed the described work product from September 2022 to April 2023. A total of 17 summary of findings tables and 16 evidence to decision tables were generated through this process. For these recommendations, the overall certainty in evidence was "very low" or "low," data for decisions on cost-effectiveness and equity were lacking, and feasibility was rated well across all categories. Based on the evidence, 16 "conditional recommendations" were made, with six PICO questions lacking sufficient evidence to generate recommendations. CONCLUSION: The EBGs for prehospital airway management were developed by leveraging validated techniques, including the GRADE methodology and a rigorous systematic approach to consensus building to identify treatment recommendations. This process allowed the mitigation of many virtual and electronic communication confounders while managing several PICO questions to be evaluated consistently. Recognizing the increased need for rigorous evidence evaluation and recommendation development, this approach allows for transparency in the development processes and may inform future guideline development.

Evidence-Based Guideline for Prehospital Airway Management.

Airway management is a cornerstone of emergency medical care. This project aimed to create evidence-based guidelines based on the systematic review recently conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). A technical expert panel was assembled to review the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The panel made specific recommendations on the different PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) questions reviewed in the AHRQ review and created good practice statements that summarize and operationalize these recommendations. The recommendations address the use of ventilation with bag-valve mask ventilation alone vs. supraglottic airways vs. endotracheal intubation for adults and children with cardiac arrest, medical emergencies, and trauma. Additional recommendations address the use of video laryngoscopy and drug-assisted airway management. These recommendations, and the associated good practice statements, offer EMS agencies and clinicians an opportunity to review the available evidence and incorporate it into their airway management strategies.

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.

Epidemiology of Search and Rescue in Baxter State Park: Dangers of Descent and Fatigue.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the epidemiology of injury in Baxter State Park, Maine, and to better tailor search and rescue (SAR) resources, personnel, and training to acute needs in the park. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all SAR incident reports in Baxter State Park from July 1992 through June 2014. For each event, demographics, location, time, activity before the incident, incident details, and evacuation means were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: In all, 754 incidents of SAR or medical need were identified. Mean age was 38.9 years; mean age for subjects with fatigue as the primary complaint was 48.7 years. A majority (60.5%) of victims were male. Nineteen fatalities occurred during the study. Traumatic injuries precipitated 51% of SAR incidents, and an additional 30% were initiated for late or lost parties. Slips or falls while hiking were the most common causes of injury (67%), with the lower extremity being the most common injury site (31%). When applicable, 84.4% of acute need occurred while descending, as opposed to ascending, a mountain. Fatigue was the most commonly reported medical emergency, causative in 66% of medical SAR events. CONCLUSIONS: Fatigue is a major factor in SAR events, both as a discreet cause and as a contributor to other injuries. Search and rescue need is more likely to occur during mountain descent, and lower extremity injuries are the most common etiology. Efforts should be focused on training rescuers in lower extremity and fatigue treatment, and more rescuers should be available when many are descending.

Characteristics of statewide protocols for emergency medical services in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to categorize and characterize the utilization of statewide emergency medical services (EMS) protocols as well as state recognition of specialty receiving facilities for trauma and time-sensitive conditions in the United States. METHODS: A survey of all state EMS offices was conducted to determine which states use mandatory or model statewide EMS protocols and to characterize these protocols based on the process for authorizing such protocols. The survey also inquired as to which states formally recognize specialty receiving facilities for trauma, STEMI, stroke, cardiac arrest, and burn as well as whether or not states have mandatory or model statewide destination protocols for these specialty centers. RESULTS: Thirty-eight states were found to have either mandatory or model statewide EMS protocols. Twenty-one states had mandatory statewide EMS protocols at either the basic life support (BLS) or advanced life support (ALS) level, and in 16 of these states, mandatory protocols covered both BLS and ALS levels of care. Seventeen states had model statewide protocols at either the BLS or ALS level, and in 14 of these states, the model protocols covered both BLS and ALS levels of care. Twenty states had separate protocols for the care of pediatric patients, while 18 states combined pediatric and adult care within the same protocols. When identified, the median age used to consider a patient for pediatric care was ≤14 years (range ≤8 to ≤17 years). Three states' protocols used a child's height based on a length-based dosage tool as the threshold for identifying a pediatric patient for care using their pediatric protocols. States varied in recognition of receiving centers for EMS patients with special medical needs: 46 recognized trauma centers, 25 recognized burn centers, 22 recognized stroke centers, 11 recognized centers capable of percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and 3 recognized centers for patients surviving cardiac arrest. CONCLUSION: Statewide mandated EMS treatment protocols exist in 21 states, and optional model protocol guidelines are provided by 17 states. There is wide variation in the format and characteristics of these protocols and the recognition of specialty receiving centers for patients with time-sensitive illnesses.

Emergency medical services triage using the emergency severity index: is it reliable and valid?

INTRODUCTION: Efficient communication between emergency medical services (EMS) and ED providers using a common triage system may enable more effective transfers when EMS arrives in the emergency department. We sought (1) to evaluate inter-rater reliability between Emergency Severity Index (ESI) assignments designated by EMS personnel and emergency triage nurses (registered nurses [RNs]) and (2) to evaluate the validity of EMS triage assignments using the ESI instrument. METHODS: This prospective, observational study evaluated inter-rater reliability in ESI scores assigned by prehospital personnel and RNs. EMS providers were trained to use the ESI by the same methods used for nurse training. EMS personnel assigned triage scores to patients independent of assignments by the RN. Inter-rater reliability, differences based on provider experience, and validity of EMS triage assignments (sensitivity and specificity) were evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy-five paired, blinded triages were completed. Overall concordance between EMS providers and RNs was 0.409 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.256-0.562). Agreement for EMS providers with less experience was 0.519 (95% CI, 0.258-0.780), whereas concordance for those with more experience was 0.348 (95% CI, 0.160-0.536; χ(2) = 1.413, df = 1, P = .235). Sensitivity ranged from 0% to 67.86%. Specificity ranged from 68.09% to 97.26%. CONCLUSIONS: We observed moderate concordance between EMS and RN ESI triage assignments. EMS sensitivity for correct acuity assignment was generally poor, whereas specificity for correctly not assigning a particular level was better. Additional research investigating the potential causes of the poor agreement that we observed is warranted.

An introduction to wilderness medicine.

As individuals increasingly recreate in wilderness settings, the medical community is faced with increasing numbers of injuries and illnesses occurring in remote and austere locations. In response to this, the specialized and dynamic field of wilderness medicine has developed to care for and counsel those participating in wilderness pursuits. This article adds clarity to the definition of wilderness medicine and examines the current state of wilderness medicine, including the scope of practice in the United States.