Utility of Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) Telephone Screening in Identifying COVID-19 Positive Patients.

Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems have received guidelines as part of coordinated response efforts aimed at mitigating exposures and ensuring occupational wellbeing, including recommendations of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) utilization, and modifications of Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) caller queries. The aim of the study was to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of an EMD telephone screening process for the identification of hospital diagnosed COVID-19 positive patients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of adult EMS encounters presenting to hospitals within a large health system from March 16-June 30, 2020. EMD telephone screening status was defined as either "positive" or "negative" and was collected from prehospital medical records. COVID-19 positive patients were confirmed via hospital laboratory diagnosis and were matched to their prehospital medical record data. Patient demographics and EMS encounter level data, such as Dispatch Code and Priority level, were also collected. Estimations of sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were made. Emergency telephone screening status was stratified by COVID-19 diagnosis to describe discordant pairs. Results: Of the 3,443 total encounters screened, there were 652 patients who were subsequently COVID-19 positive per hospital diagnosis (18.9%). Approximately 5.0% of all encounters did not screen positive on EMD screening but were later COVID-19 positive. Conversely, 44.2% of encounters screened positive for COVID-19, but were subsequently negative. Sensitivity of the EMD telephonic screening was estimated as 75.0% (95% CI 71.7%, 78.3%) and specificity was 45.5% (95% CI 43.7%, 47.4%). The PPV was 24.3% (95% CI 22.5%, 26.0%), and NPV 88.6% (95% CI 87.0%, 90.3%). Conclusions: The sensitivity of the EMD telephonic screening process was moderately able to identify COVID-19 positive patients. There is a need to reevaluate and revise guidelines and recommendations, specifically modified caller queries, as part of ongoing pandemic emergency response efforts in order to reduce transmissions and maximize patient and provider safety.

Resuscitation Quality Improvement® (RQI®) HeartCode Complete® program improves chest compression rate in real world out-of hospital cardiac arrest patients.

BACKGROUND: The Resuscitation Quality Improvement® (RQI®) HeartCode Complete® program is designed to enhance cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training by using real-time feedback manikins. Our objective was to assess the quality of CPR, such as chest compression rate, depth, and fraction, performed on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients among paramedics trained with the RQI® program vs. paramedics who were not. METHODS AND RESULTS: Adult OHCA cases from 2021 were analyzed; 353 OHCA cases were classified into one of three groups: 1) 0 RQI®-trained paramedics, 2) 1 RQI®-trained paramedic, and 3) 2-3 RQI®-trained paramedics. We reported the median of the average compression rate, depth, and fraction, as well as percent of compressions that were between 100 to 120/minute and percent of compressions that were 2.0 to 2.4 inches deep. Kruskal-Wallis Tests were used to assess differences in these metrics across the three groups of paramedics. Of 353 cases, the median of the average compression rate/minute among crews with 0, 1, and 2-3 RQI®-trained paramedics was 130, 125, and 125, respectively (p = 0.0032). Median percent of compressions between 100 to 120 compressions/minute was 10.3%, 19.7%, and 20.1% among crews with 0, 1, and 2-3 RQI®-trained paramedics, respectively (p = 0.0010). Median of the average compression depth was 1.7 inches across all three groups (p = 0.4881). Median compression fraction was 86.4%, 84.6%, and 85.5% among crews with 0, 1, and 2-3 RQI®-trained paramedics, respectively (p = 0.6371). CONCLUSIONS: RQI® training was associated with statistically significant improvement in chest compression rate, but not improved chest compression depth or fraction in OHCA.

Factors Influencing Use of Personal Protective Equipment Among Emergency Medical Services Responders During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Chart Review.

INTRODUCTION: The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is a salient component of reducing occupational risk in many fields. Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel use PPE to reduce risk of exposure and defend against various pathogens they come in contact with while providing patient care. Currently, the understanding of factors that predict the use of PPE by an EMS responder during a pandemic is limited. In this study our objective was to identify factors that influenced PPE use by EMS responders during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which may guide future planning for responders in similar austere or personal risk situations. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review among all EMS encounters across an EMS agency affiliated with a large New York health system from March 16-June 30, 2020. All adult, emergency encounters with available prehospital record data were analyzed. We assessed patient- and EMS encounter-level data as possible factors that influence PPE utilization. The use of PPE was defined and guided by the literature as being either full or partial PPE, or "not documented." We used multinomial logistic regression to identify factors that influence PPE use among EMS responders. RESULTS: We identified 28,693 eligible EMS encounters during the study period; 54.2% of patients were male, the median patient age was 58 years, and 66.9% of patients had at least one chronic medical condition. The use of PPE was documented in 92.8% of encounters, with full PPE used in 17.8% of these encounters. Full PPE utilization, relative to partial, was most strongly influenced by dispatch codes indicative of "breathing problems" (odds ratio [OR] 4.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.40, 5.46) and "cardiac/respiratory arrest" (OR 3.82; 95% CI: 2.99, 4.88), in addition to a patient's positive screening for COVID-19 on 9-1-1 dispatch (OR 3.97; 95% CI: 3.66, 4.32). CONCLUSION: Emergency medical services responders more frequently used full PPE for calls with dispatch codes indicative of respiratory distress or cardiac arrest. Understanding factors that influence PPE use among EMS personnel, particularly during times of public health emergencies, is essential to mitigate exposure and ensure the safety of frontline responders.