Barriers to integrating portable Magnetic Resonance Imaging systems in emergency medical service ambulances for stroke care.

This study examines the barriers to integrating portable Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) systems into ambulance services to enable effective triaging of patients to the appropriate hospitals for timely stroke care and potentially reduce door-to-needle time for thrombolytic administration. The study employs a qualitative methodology using a digital twin of the patient handling process developed and demonstrated through semi-structured interviews with 18 participants, including 11 paramedics from an Emergency Medical Services system and seven neurologists from a tertiary stroke care centre. The interview transcripts were thematically analysed to determine the barriers based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety framework. Key barriers include the need for MRI operation skills, procedural complexities in patient handling, space constraints, and the need for training and policy development. Potential solutions are suggested to mitigate these barriers. The findings can facilitate implementing MRI systems in ambulances to expedite stroke treatment.

This study investigates the challenges of integrating portable MRI systems into ambulances for faster stroke care. It identifies key barriers such as operational skills, procedural complexities, space constraints, and policy development needs, and offers a few solutions to improve emergency stroke treatment.

Mobile point-of-care MRI demonstration of a normal volunteer in a telemedicine-equipped ambulance.

OBJECTIVE: Several centers have implemented ambulances equipped with CT scanners and telemedicine capabilities, known as mobile stroke units (MSU), to expedite acute stroke care delivery in the pre-hospital setting. While MSUs have been shown to improve outcomes compared with standard emergency medical management, there are limitations to incorporating CT, including radiation exposure to emergency medical services personnel. Recently, a portable, low-field strength MRI (Swoop®, Hyperfine, Inc., Guilford, CT) received FDA clearance for in-hospital use. Here, as proof-of-concept, we explore the possibility of performing MRI in a telemedicine-equipped ambulance during active transport. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this initial technical demonstration, we imaged an MR phantom and a normal human volunteer using a standard stroke protocol during active ambulance transport. RESULTS: Images of the MR phantom and volunteer were successfully obtained and were immediately available for viewing in the hospital PACS system. The images were deemed of diagnostic quality by the radiologist. Active motion correction maintained superior image quality despite vehicle and scanner motion. In-plane, low contrast resolution of greater than 4 × 4 mm was achieved. Average transmit speeds were calculated to be 3.54 Megabits/second and upload data rates varied while in transit ranging from 8.54 to 4.13 Megabits/second. CONCLUSION: While MRI is not yet ready for clinical use in the MSU setting, our initial experience suggests potential technological feasible of this approach following future technical and MRI sequence development. Additional studies, incorporating patients, would be required to determine clinical feasibility.

Emergency Medical Services Traumatic Brain Injury Protocols Do Not Reflect Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Implementation of traumatic brain injury (TBI) guideline recommendations for prehospital care is associated with improved outcomes, but prehospital guideline uptake is frequently delayed. Our objective was to estimate how well TBI guidelines are reflected in a national sample of prehospital TBI protocols in 2012 and 2018, 5 and 11 years after guideline publication. Methods: A purposeful sample of publicly accessible prehospital protocols were obtained in 2012, and updates of those protocols were obtained in 2018. Guideline recommendations were codified into a 23-item tool that was used to dual-abstract each prehospital protocol set. Descriptive statistics and chi-square testing were used to compare differences. Fifty-three sets of protocols representing 25 states and multiple administrative structures were identified. Results: None of the protocols contained all twenty-three elements of the guidelines, and more than one-third (19/53, 35%) did not have a TBI-specific protocol. While some individual items appeared more frequently in 2018 than 2012, more than half of the reviewed protocols do not contain guidance on ventilation or definitions of hypoxemia, hypotension, or pupil asymmetry. Conclusions: Evaluation of a diverse sample of EMS protocols demonstrates a significant deficit in the adoption of TBI guidelines more than a decade after publication.