Inequalities in birth before arrival at hospital in South West England: a multimethods study of neonatal hypothermia and emergency medical services call-handler advice.

OBJECTIVES: To examine inequalities in birth before arrival (BBA) at hospitals in South West England, understand which groups are most likely to experience BBA and how this relates to hypothermia and outcomes (phase A). To investigate opportunities to improve temperature management advice given by emergency medical services (EMS) call-handlers during emergency calls regarding BBA in the UK (phase B). DESIGN: A two-phase multimethod study. Phase A analysed anonymised data from hospital neonatal records between January 2018 and January 2021. Phase B analysed anonymised EMS call transcripts, followed by focus groups with National Health Service (NHS) staff and patients. SETTING: Six Hospital Trusts in South West England and two EMS providers (ambulance services) in South West and North East England. PARTICIPANTS: 18 multidisciplinary NHS staff and 22 members of the public who had experienced BBA in the UK. RESULTS: 35% (64/184) of babies conveyed to hospital were hypothermic on arrival. When compared with national data on all births in the South West, we found higher percentages of women with documented safeguarding concerns at booking, previous live births and 'late bookers' (booking their pregnancy >13 weeks gestation). These women may, therefore, be more likely to experience BBA. Preterm babies, babies to first-time mothers and babies born to mothers with disability or safeguarding concerns at booking were more likely to be hypothermic following BBA. Five main themes emerged from qualitative data on call-handler advice: (1) importance placed on neonatal temperature; (2) advice on where the baby should be placed following birth; (3) advice on how to keep the baby warm; (4) timing of temperature management advice and (5) clarity and priority of instructions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings identified factors associated with BBA and neonatal hypothermia following BBA. Improvements to EMS call-handler advice could reduce the number of babies arriving at hospital hypothermic.

Which elements of hospital-based clinical decision support tools for the assessment and management of children with head injury can be adapted for use by paramedics in prehospital care? A systematic mapping review and narrative synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital-based clinical decision tools support clinician decision-making when a child presents to the emergency department with a head injury, particularly regarding CT scanning. However, there is no decision tool to support prehospital clinicians in deciding which head-injured children can safely remain at scene. This study aims to identify clinical decision tools, or constituent elements, which may be adapted for use in prehospital care. DESIGN: Systematic mapping review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods or systematic review research that included a clinical decision support tool for assessing and managing children with head injury. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We systematically identified all in-hospital clinical decision support tools and extracted from these the clinical criteria used in decision-making. We complemented this with a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Following de-duplication, 887 articles were identified. After screening titles and abstracts, 710 articles were excluded, leaving 177 full-text articles. Of these, 95 were excluded, yielding 82 studies. A further 14 studies were identified in the literature after cross-checking, totalling 96 analysed studies. 25 relevant in-hospital clinical decision tools were identified, encompassing 67 different clinical criteria, which were grouped into 18 categories. CONCLUSION: Factors that should be considered for use in a clinical decision tool designed to support paramedics in the assessment and management of children with head injury are: signs of skull fracture; a large, boggy or non-frontal scalp haematoma neurological deficit; Glasgow Coma Score less than 15; prolonged or worsening headache; prolonged loss of consciousness; post-traumatic seizure; amnesia in older children; non-accidental injury; drug or alcohol use; and less than 1 year old. Clinical criteria that require further investigation include mechanism of injury, clotting impairment/anticoagulation, vertigo, length of time of unconsciousness and number of vomits.

Randomised trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supraglottic airway device compared with tracheal intubation for in-hospital cardiac arrest (AIRWAYS-3): Protocol, design and implementation.

Survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest is approximately 18%, but for patients who require advanced airway management survival is lower. Those who do survive are often left with significant disability. Traditionally, resuscitation of cardiac arrest patients has included tracheal intubation, however insertion of a supraglottic airway has gained popularity as an alternative approach to advanced airway management. Evidence from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest suggests no significant differences in mortality or morbidity between these two approaches, but there is no randomised evidence for airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest. The aim of the AIRWAYS-3 randomised trial, described in this protocol paper, is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supraglottic airway versus tracheal intubation during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients will be allocated randomly to receive either a supraglottic airway or tracheal intubation as the initial advanced airway management. We will also estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of these two approaches. The primary outcome is functional status, measured using the modified Rankin Scale at hospital discharge or 30 days post-randomisation, whichever occurs first. AIRWAYS-3 presents ethical challenges regarding patient consent and data collection. These include the enrolment of unconscious patients without prior consent in a way that avoids methodological bias. Other complexities include the requirement to randomise patients efficiently during a time-critical cardiac arrest. Many of these challenges are encountered in other emergency care research; we discuss our approaches to addressing them. Trial registration: ISRCTN17720457. Prospectively registered on 29/07/2022.

A national study of 23 major trauma centres to investigate the effect of a geriatrician assessment on clinical outcomes in older people admitted with serious injury in England (FiTR 2): a multicentre observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Older people are at the greatest risk of poor outcomes after serious injury. Evidence is limited for the benefit of assessment by a geriatrician in trauma care. We aimed to determine the effect of geriatrician assessment on clinical outcomes for older people admitted to hospital with serious injury. METHODS: In this multicentre observational study (FiTR 2), we extracted prospectively collected data on older people (aged ≥65 years) admitted to the 23 major trauma centres in England over a 2·5 year period from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) database. We examined the effect of a geriatrician assessment within 72 h of admission on the primary outcome of inpatient mortality in older people admitted to hospital with serious injury, with patients censored at discharge. We analysed data using a multi-level Cox regression model and estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs). FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2019, and Oct 31, 2021, 193 156 patients had records held by TARN, of whom 35 490 were included in these analyses. Median age was 81·4 years (IQR 74·1-87·6), 19 468 (54·9%) were female, and 16 022 (45·1%) were male. 28 208 (79·5%) patients had experienced a fall from less than 2 m. 16 504 (46·5%) people received a geriatrician assessment. 4419 (12·5%) patients died during hospital stay, with a median time from admission to death of 6 days (IQR 2-14). Of those who died, 1660 (37·6%) had received a geriatrician assessment and 2759 (62·4%) had not (aHR 0·43 [95% CI 0·40-0·46]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Geriatrician assessment was associated with a reduced risk of death for seriously injured older people. These data support routine provision of geriatrician assessment in trauma care. Future research should explore the key components of a geriatrician assessment paired with a health economic evaluation. FUNDING: None.

Supraglottic airway device versus tracheal intubation in the initial airway management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the AIRWAYS-2 cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: When a cardiac arrest occurs, cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be started immediately. However, there is limited evidence about the best approach to airway management during cardiac arrest. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine whether or not the i-gel® (Intersurgical Ltd, Wokingham, UK) supraglottic airway is superior to tracheal intubation as the initial advanced airway management strategy in adults with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, open, parallel, two-group, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial. A cost-effectiveness analysis accompanied the trial. SETTING: The setting was four ambulance services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years who had a non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and were attended by a participating paramedic were enrolled automatically under a waiver of consent between June 2015 and August 2017. Follow-up ended in February 2018. INTERVENTION: Paramedics were randomised 1 : 1 to use tracheal intubation (764 paramedics) or i-gel (759 paramedics) for their initial advanced airway management and were unblinded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale score at hospital discharge or 30 days after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, whichever occurred earlier, collected by assessors blinded to allocation. The modified Rankin Scale, a measure of neurological disability, was dichotomised: a score of 0-3 (good outcome) or 4-6 (poor outcome/death). The primary outcome for the economic evaluation was quality-adjusted life-years, estimated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. RESULTS: A total of 9296 patients (supraglottic airway group, 4886; tracheal intubation group, 4410) were enrolled [median age 73 years; 3373 (36.3%) women]; modified Rankin Scale score was known for 9289 patients. Characteristics were similar between groups. A total of 6.4% (311/4882) of patients in the supraglottic airway group and 6.8% (300/4407) of patients in the tracheal intubation group had a good outcome (adjusted difference in proportions of patients experiencing a good outcome: -0.6%, 95% confidence interval -1.6% to 0.4%). The supraglottic airway group had a higher initial ventilation success rate than the tracheal intubation group [87.4% (4255/4868) vs. 79.0% (3473/4397), respectively; adjusted difference in proportions of patients: 8.3%, 95% confidence interval 6.3% to 10.2%]; however, patients in the tracheal intubation group were less likely to receive advanced airway management than patients in the supraglottic airway group [77.6% (3419/4404) vs. 85.2% (4161/4883), respectively]. Regurgitation rate was similar between the groups [supraglottic airway group, 26.1% (1268/4865); tracheal intubation group, 24.5% (1072/4372); adjusted difference in proportions of patients: 1.4%, 95% confidence interval -0.6% to 3.4%], as was aspiration rate [supraglottic airway group, 15.1% (729/4824); tracheal intubation group, 14.9% (647/4337); adjusted difference in proportions of patients: 0.1%, 95% confidence interval -1.5% to 1.8%]. The longer-term outcomes were also similar between the groups (modified Rankin Scale: at 3 months, odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.14; at 6 months, odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 1.16). Sensitivity analyses did not alter the overall findings. There were no unexpected serious adverse events. Mean quality-adjusted life-years to 6 months were 0.03 in both groups (supraglottic airway group minus tracheal intubation group difference -0.0015, 95% confidence interval -0.0059 to 0.0028), and total costs were £157 (95% confidence interval -£270 to £583) lower in the tracheal intubation group. Although the point estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio suggested that tracheal intubation may be cost-effective, the huge uncertainty around this result indicates no evidence of a difference between groups. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included imbalance in the number of patients in each group, caused by unequal distribution of high-enrolling paramedics; crossover between groups; and the fact that participating paramedics, who were volunteers, might not be representative of all paramedics in the UK. Findings may not be applicable to other countries. CONCLUSION: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, randomisation to the supraglottic airway group compared with the tracheal intubation group did not result in a difference in outcome at 30 days. There were no notable differences in costs, outcomes and overall cost-effectiveness between the groups. FUTURE WORK: Future work could compare alternative supraglottic airway types with tracheal intubation; include a randomised trial of bag mask ventilation versus supraglottic airways; and involve other patient populations, including children, people with trauma and people in hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN08256118. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and supported by the NIHR Comprehensive Research Networks and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest is a serious medical emergency in which the heartbeat and breathing stop suddenly. Every year in the UK, a large number of patients (around 123 per 100,000) suffer a cardiac arrest outside hospital. Only 7­9% of these patients survive to leave hospital. The best initial treatment in cardiac arrest is cardiopulmonary resuscitation (commonly known as CPR), during which it is vital to give chest compressions and maintain a clear airway. Two main techniques are used to keep the airway clear: tracheal intubation (inserting a breathing tube into the windpipe) and a supraglottic airway device (a newer device that is inserted less deeply and sits just above the voicebox). Both techniques are used routinely by paramedics in the UK when treating a cardiac arrest, but there is no evidence about which technique is best. The AIRWAYS-2 trial aimed to find out whether or not a supraglottic airway device is better than tracheal intubation. WHO PARTICIPATED AND WHAT WAS INVOLVED?: Paramedics from four UK ambulance services were put into one of two groups at random. One group was randomly chosen to use tracheal intubation and the other group was randomly chosen to use a supraglottic airway device at all adult cardiac arrests they attended for approximately 2 years. Paramedics were able to apply their clinical judgement and use a different device if they felt that this would be best for the patient. A total of 1523 paramedics took part and enrolled 9296 patients. Following cardiac arrest, a patient's recovery was assessed as good or poor (including patients who did not survive). WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?: A similar percentage of patients in both groups had a good recovery. There was no evidence to suggest that the supraglottic airway device was any better than tracheal intubation for treating a cardiac arrest.

Cost-effectiveness of the i-gel supraglottic airway device compared to tracheal intubation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Findings from the AIRWAYS-2 randomised controlled trial.

AIM: Optimal airway management during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is uncertain. Complications from tracheal intubation (TI) may be avoided with supraglottic airway (SGA) devices. The AIRWAYS-2 cluster randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN08256118) compared the i-gel SGA with TI as the initial advanced airway management (AAM) strategy by paramedics treating adults with non-traumatic OHCA. This paper reports the trial cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of the i-gel compared with TI was conducted, with a six-month time horizon, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services. The primary outcome measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), estimated using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Multilevel linear regression modelling was used to account for clustering by paramedic when combining costs and outcomes. RESULTS: 9296 eligible patients were attended by 1382 trial paramedics and enrolled in the AIRWAYS-2 trial (4410 TI, 4886 i-gel). Mean QALYs to six months were 0.03 in both groups (i-gel minus TI difference -0.0015, 95% CI -0.0059 to 0.0028). Total costs per participant up to six months post-OHCA were £3570 and £3413 in the i-gel and TI groups respectively (mean difference £157, 95% CI -£270 to £583). Based on mean difference point estimates, TI was more effective and less costly than i-gel; however differences were small and there was great uncertainty around these results. CONCLUSION: The small differences between groups in QALYs and costs shows no difference in the cost-effectiveness of the i-gel and TI when used as the initial AAM strategy in adults with non-traumatic OHCA.

Observational Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Routine Data: Admission and Discharge Care Bundles for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent respiratory disease, and accounts for a substantial proportion of unplanned hospital admissions. Care bundles for COPD are a set of standardised, evidence-based interventions that may improve outcomes in hospitalised COPD patients. We estimated the cost effectiveness of care bundles for acute exacerbations of COPD using routinely collected observational data. METHODS: Data were collected from implementation (n = 7) and comparator (n = 7) acute hospitals located in England and Wales. We conducted a difference-in-difference cost-effectiveness analysis using a secondary care (i.e. hospital) perspective to examine the effect on National Health Service (NHS) costs and 90-day mortality of implementing care bundles compared with usual care for patients admitted to hospital with an acute exacerbation of COPD. Adjusted models included as covariates patient age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity and seasonal effects and mixed effects for site. RESULTS: Outcomes and baseline characteristics of up to 12,532 patients were analysed using both complete case and multiply imputed models. Implementation of bundles varied. COPD care bundles were associated with slightly lower secondary care costs, but there was no evidence that they improved outcomes once adjustments were made for site and baseline covariates. Care bundles were unlikely to be cost effective for the NHS with an estimated net monetary benefit per 90-day death avoided from an adjusted multiply imputed model of -£1231 (95% confidence interval - £2428 to - £35) at a high cost-effectiveness threshold of £50,000 per 90-day death avoided. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Care bundles for COPD did not appear to be cost effective, although this finding may have been influenced by unmeasured variations in bundle implementation and other potential confounding factors.

Evaluation of 'care bundles' for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a multisite study in the UK.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) accounts for 10% of emergency hospital admissions in the UK annually. Nearly 33% of patients are readmitted within 28 days of discharge. We evaluated the effectiveness of implementing standardised packages of care called 'care bundles' on COPD readmission, emergency department (ED) attendance, mortality, costs and process of care. Methods: This is a mixed-methods, controlled before-and-after study with nested case studies. 31 acute hospitals in England and Wales which introduced COPD care bundles (implementation sites) or provided usual care (comparator sites) were recruited and provided monthly aggregate data. 14 sites provided additional individual patient data. Participants were adults admitted with an acute exacerbation of COPD. Results: There was no evidence that care bundles reduced 28-day COPD readmission rates: OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.26). However, the rate of ED attendance was reduced in implementation sites over and above that in comparator sites (implementation: IRR=0.63 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.71); comparator: IRR=1.12 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.24); group-time interaction p<0.001). At implementation sites, delivery of all bundle elements was higher but was only achieved in 2.2% (admissions bundle) and 7.6% (discharge bundle) of cases. There was no evidence of cost-effectiveness. Staff viewed bundles positively, believing they help standardise practice and facilitate communication between clinicians. However, they lacked skills in change management, leading to inconsistent implementation. Discussion: COPD care bundles were not effectively implemented in this study. They were associated with a reduced number of subsequent ED attendances, but not with change in readmissions, mortality or reduced costs. This is unsurprising given the low level of bundle uptake in implementation sites, and it remains to be determined if COPD care bundles affect patient care and outcomes when they are effectively implemented. Trial registration number: ISRCTN13022442.

Cost-effectiveness of advanced life support and prehospital critical care for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in England: a decision analysis model.

OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to answer the following questions: What are the costs of prehospital advanced life support (ALS) and prehospital critical care for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)? What is the cost-effectiveness of prehospital ALS? What improvement in survival rates from OHCA would prehospital critical care need to achieve in order to be cost-effective? SETTING: A single National Health Service ambulance service and a charity-funded prehospital critical care service in England. PARTICIPANTS: The patient population is adult, non-traumatic OHCA. METHODS: We combined data from previously published research with data provided by a regional ambulance service and air ambulance charity to create a decision tree model, coupled with a Markov model, of costs and outcomes following OHCA. We compared no treatment for OHCA to the current standard of care of prehospital ALS, and prehospital ALS to prehospital critical care. To reflect the uncertainty in the underlying data, we used probabilistic and two-way sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Costs of prehospital ALS and prehospital critical care were £347 and £1711 per patient, respectively. When costs and outcomes of prehospital, in-hospital and postdischarge phase of OHCA care were combined, prehospital ALS was estimated to be cost-effective at £11 407/quality-adjusted life year. In order to be cost-effective in addition to ALS, prehospital critical care for OHCA would need to achieve a minimally economically important difference (MEID) in survival to hospital discharge of 3%-5%. CONCLUSION: This is the first economic analysis to address the question of cost-effectiveness of prehospital critical care following OHCA. While costs of either prehospital ALS and/or critical care per patient with OHCA are relatively low, significant costs are incurred during hospital treatment and after discharge in patients who survive. Knowledge of the MEID for prehospital critical care can guide future research in this field. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18375201.

General practitioners and emergency departments (GPED)-efficient models of care: a mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure continues to grow on emergency departments in the UK and throughout the world, with declining performance and adverse effects on patient outcome, safety and experience. One proposed solution is to locate general practitioners to work in or alongside the emergency department (GPED). Several GPED models have been introduced, however, evidence of effectiveness is weak. This study aims to evaluate the impact of GPED on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital team and the wider urgent care system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be divided into three work packages (WPs). WP-A; Mapping and Taxonomy: mapping, description and classification of current models of GPED in all emergency departments in England and interviews with key informants to examine the hypotheses that underpin GPED. WP-B; Quantitative Analysis of National Data: measurement of the effectiveness, costs and consequences of the GPED models identified in WP-A, compared with a no-GPED model, using retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics Data. WP-C; Case Studies: detailed case studies of different GPED models using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods including: non-participant observation of clinical care, semistructured interviews with staff, patients and carers; workforce surveys with emergency department staff and analysis of available local routinely collected hospital data. Prospective case study sites will be identified by completing telephone interviews with sites awarded capital funding by the UK government to implement GPED initiatives. The study has a strong patient and public involvement group that has contributed to study design and materials, and which will be closely involved in data interpretation and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the National Health Service East Midlands-Leicester South Research Ethics Committee: 17/EM/0312. The results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a planned programme of knowledge mobilisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN51780222.

Randomised controlled trial of the Limit of Detection of Troponin and ECG Discharge (LoDED) strategy versus usual care in adult patients with chest pain attending the emergency department: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Observational data suggest a single high-sensitivity troponin blood test taken at emergency department (ED) presentation could be used to rule out major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in 10%-60% of ED patients with chest pain. This is done using an 'undetectable' cut-off (the Limit of Detection: LoD). We combined the LoD cut-off with ECG findings to create the LoDED strategy. We aim to establish whether the LoDED strategy works under real-life conditions, when compared with existing strategies, in a way that is cost-effective and acceptable to patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a parallel-group pragmatic randomised controlled trial across UK EDs. Adults presenting to ED with suspected cardiac chest pain will be randomised 1:1. Existing rule-out strategies in current use across study centres, using serial high-sensitivity troponin testing, will be compared with the LoDED strategy. The primary outcome is successful early discharge (discharge from hospital within 4 hours of arrival) without MACE occurring within 30 days. Secondary outcomes include initial length of hospital stay; comparative costs; patient satisfaction and acceptability to patients. To detect a 9% difference between the early discharge rates (assuming an 8% rate in the standard care group) with 90% power, 594 patients need to be recruited, assuming a 95% follow-up rate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Frenchay Research Ethics Committee (reference 18/SW/0038). Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. Lay summaries will be made available to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN86184521; Pre-results.

A systematic review to identify and assess the effectiveness of alternatives for people over the age of 65 who are at risk of potentially avoidable hospital admission.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: There are some older patients who are 'at the decision margin' of admission. This systematic review sought to explore this issue with the following objective: what admission alternatives are there for older patients and are they safe, effective and cost-effective? A secondary objective was to identify the characteristics of those older patients for whom the decision to admit to hospital may be unclear. DESIGN: Systematic review of controlled studies (April 2005-December 2016) with searches in Medline, Embase, Cinahl and CENTRAL databases. The protocol is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42015020371). Studies were assessed using Cochrane risk of bias criteria, and relevant reviews were assessed with the AMSTAR tool. The results are presented narratively and discussed. SETTING: Primary and secondary healthcare interface. PARTICIPANTS: People aged over 65 years at risk of an unplanned admission. INTERVENTIONS: Any community-based intervention offered as an alternative to admission to an acute hospital. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: Reduction in secondary care use, patient-related outcomes, safety and costs. RESULTS: Nineteen studies and seven systematic reviews were identified. These recruited patients with both specific conditions and mixed chronic and acute conditions. The interventions involved paramedic/emergency care practitioners (n=3), emergency department-based interventions (n=3), community hospitals (n=2) and hospital-at-home services (n=11). Data suggest that alternatives to admission appear safe with potential to reduce secondary care use and length of time receiving care. There is a lack of patient-related outcomes and cost data. The important features of older patients for whom the decision to admit is uncertain are: age over 75 years, comorbidities/multi-morbidities, dementia, home situation, social support and individual coping abilities. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review describes and assesses evidence on alternatives to acute care for older patients and shows that many of the options available are safe and appear to reduce resource use. However, cost analyses and patient preference data are lacking.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of prehospital critical care following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Improving survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a priority for modern emergency medical services (EMS) and prehospital research. Advanced life support (ALS) is now the standard of care in most EMS. In some EMS, prehospital critical care providers are also dispatched to attend OHCA. This systematic review presents the evidence for prehospital critical care for OHCA, when compared to standard ALS care. METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed, EmBASE, CINAHL Plus and AMED (via EBSCO), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, NIHR Health Technology Assessment Database, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov. Search terms related to cardiac arrest and prehospital critical care. All studies that compared patient-centred outcomes between prehospital critical care and ALS for OHCA were included. RESULTS: The review identified six full text publications that matched the inclusion criteria, all of which are observational studies. Three studies showed no benefit from prehospital critical care but were underpowered with sample sizes of 1028-1851. The other three publications showed benefit from prehospital critical care delivered by physicians. However, an imbalance of prognostic factors and hospital treatment in these studies systematically favoured the prehospital critical care group. CONCLUSION: Current evidence to support prehospital critical care for OHCA is limited by the logistic difficulties of undertaking high quality research in this area. Further research needs an appropriate sample size with adjustments for confounding factors in observational research design.

Prehospital critical care for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: An observational study examining survival and a stakeholder-focused cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Survival rates from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remain low, despite remarkable efforts to improve care. A number of ambulance services in the United Kingdom (UK) have developed prehospital critical care teams (CCTs) which attend critically ill patients, including OHCA. However, current scientific evidence describing CCTs attending OHCA is sparse and research to date has not demonstrated clear benefits from this model of care. METHODS: This prospective, observational study will describe the effect of CCTs on survival from OHCA, when compared to advanced-life-support (ALS), the current standard of prehospital care in the UK. In addition, we will describe the association between individual critical care interventions and survival, and also the costs of CCTs for OHCA. To examine the effect of CCTs on survival from OHCA, we will use routine Utstein variables data already collected in a number of UK ambulance trusts. We will use propensity score matching to adjust for imbalances between the CCT and ALS groups. The primary outcome will be survival to hospital discharge, with the secondary outcome of survival to hospital admission. We will record the critical care interventions delivered during CCT attendance at OHCA. We will describe frequencies and aim to use multiple logistic regression to examine possible associations with survival. Finally, we will undertake a stakeholder-focused cost analysis of CCTs for OHCA. This will utilise a previously published Emergency Medical Services (EMS) cost analysis toolkit and will take into account the costs incurred from use of a helicopter and the proportion of these costs currently covered by charities in the UK. DISCUSSION: Prehospital critical care for OHCA is not universally available in many EMS. In the UK, it is variable and largely funded through public donations to charities. If this study demonstrates benefit from CCTs at an acceptable cost to the public or EMS commissioners, it will provide a rationale to increase funding and service provision. If no clinical benefit is found, the public and charities providing these services can consider concentrating their efforts on other areas of prehospital care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ID ISRCTN18375201 .

Design and implementation of the AIRWAYS-2 trial: A multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the i-gel supraglottic airway device versus tracheal intubation in the initial airway management of out of hospital cardiac arrest.

Health outcomes after out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) are extremely poor, with only 7-9% of patients in the United Kingdom (UK) surviving to hospital discharge. Currently emergency medical services (EMS) use either tracheal intubation or newer supraglottic airway devices (SGAs) to provide advanced airway management during OHCA. Equipoise between the two techniques has led to calls for a well-designed randomised controlled trial. The primary objective of the AIRWAYS-2 trial is to assess whether the clinical effectiveness of the i-gel, a second-generation SGA, is superior to tracheal intubation in the initial airway management of OHCA patients in the UK. Paramedics recruited to the AIRWAYS-2 trial are randomised to use either tracheal intubation or i-gel as their first advanced airway intervention. Adults who have had a non-traumatic OHCA and are attended by an AIRWAYS-2 paramedic are retrospectively assessed against eligibility criteria for inclusion. The primary outcome is the modified Rankin Scale score at hospital discharge. Secondary objectives are to: (i) estimate differences between groups in outcome measures relating to airway management, hospital stay and recovery at 3 and 6 months; (ii) estimate the cost effectiveness of the i-gel compared to tracheal intubation. Because OHCA patient needs immediate treatment there are several unusual features and challenges to the design and implementation of this trial; these include level of randomisation, the automatic enrolment model, enrolment of patients that lack capacity and minimisation of bias. Patient enrolment began in June 2015. The trial will enrol 9070 patients over two years. The results are expected to influence future resuscitation guidelines. Trial Registration ISRCTN: 08256118.

Can paramedics use FRAX (the WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool) to help GPs improve future fracture risk in patients who fall? Protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Currently identification, and therefore, management of patients at risk of osteoporotic fracture in the UK is suboptimal. As the majority of patients who fracture have fallen, it follows that people who fall can usefully be targeted in any programme that aims to reduce osteoporotic fracture. Targeting vulnerable patients who are likely to benefit from intervention may help shift the management of fracture prevention into primary care, away from emergency departments. Paramedics who attend to patients who have fallen may be well placed to assess future fracture risk, using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and communicate that information directly to general practitioners (GPs). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This feasibility study takes the form of a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial aimed at exploring and refining issues of study design, recruitment, retention, sample size and acceptability preceding a large-scale study with fracture as the end point. Patients (aged >50) who fall, call an ambulance, are attended by a study paramedic and give verbal consent will be asked FRAX and fall questions. Patients who subsequently formally consent to participation will be randomised to control (usual care) or intervention groups. Intervention will constitute transmission of calculated future fracture risk to the patients' GP with suitable, evidence-based recommendations for investigation or treatment. 3 months after the index fall, data (proportion of patients in each group undergoing investigation or starting new treatment, quality of life and health economic) will be collected and analysed using descriptive statistics. A nested qualitative study will explore issues of acceptability and study design with patients, paramedics and GPs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was approved by NRES Committee South Central Oxford C in October 2012. Research Ethics Committee ref.12/SC/0604. The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and local public events. A publication plan and authorship criteria have been preagreed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN: 36245726.

A randomised trial comparing the cost effectiveness of different emergency department healthcare professionals in soft tissue injury management.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of soft tissue injury management by emergency nurse practitioners (ENPs) and extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs) compared with the routine care provided by doctors in an emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Randomised, pragmatic trial of equivalence. SETTING: A single ED in England. PARTICIPANTS: 372 patients were randomised, 126 to the ESP group, 123 to the ENP group and 123 to the doctor group. Participants were adults (16 years and older) presenting to the ED with a peripheral soft tissue injury eligible for management by any of the three professional groups. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to treatment by an ESP, ENP or routine care provided by doctors (of all grades). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Economic cost-minimisation evaluation from a funder perspective of the National Health Service, England incorporating analysis of the direct, indirect and tangible costs of care in primary and secondary settings. RESULTS: From a funder perspective in primary and secondary care, ESPs and ENPs are at best equivalent and could not cost less than routine care. Uncertainty in cost arises from ESPs and ENPs incurring greater indirect costs, such as those associated with follow-up appointments and subsequent primary care visits. Comparison from a funder perspective in secondary care, that is, considering those costs incurred in secondary care alone, demonstrates that ENPs are equivalent in cost to routine care, while ESPs are either equivalent or possibly cheaper than routine care. CONCLUSIONS: These results question the notion that training the healthcare workforce to undertake extensions of their role is generally cost effective. While the randomised trial indicated that the three professional groups have equivalent clinical outcomes, this economic analysis suggests that substitution of routine care with a predominantly ESP or ENP workforce could prove more expensive. Further research is required to understand the underlying reasons for this. The trial has been registered with ISRCTN-ISRCTN 70891354.

Intravenous or nebulised magnesium sulphate versus standard therapy for severe acute asthma (3Mg trial): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggested intravenous or nebulised magnesium sulphate (MgSO(4)) might improve respiratory function in patients with acute asthma. We aimed to determine whether intravenous or nebulised MgSO(4) improve symptoms of breathlessness and reduce the need for hospital admission in adults with severe acute asthma. METHODS: In our double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled adults (aged ≥16 years) with severe acute asthma at emergency departments of 34 hospitals in the UK. We excluded patients with life-threatening features or contraindication to study drugs. We used a central randomisation system to allocate participants to intravenous MgSO(4) (2 g in 20 min) or nebulised MgSO(4) (three 500 mg doses in 1 h) alongside standard therapy including salbutamol, or placebo control plus standard therapy alone. We assessed two primary outcome measures in all eligible participants who started treatment, according to assigned treatment group: the proportion of patients admitted to hospital within 7 days and breathlessness measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) in the 2 h after initiation of treatment. We adjusted for multiple testing using Simes's method. The trial stopped before recruitment was completed because funding expired. This study is registered, number ISRCTN04417063. FINDINGS: Between July 30, 2008, and June 30, 2012, we recruited 1109 (92%) of 1200 patients proposed by the power calculation. 261 (79%) of 332 patients allocated nebulised MgSO(4) were admitted to hospital before 7 days, as were 285 (72%) of 394 patients allocated intravenous MgSO(4) and 281 (78%) of 358 controls. Breathlessness was assessed in 296 (89%) patients allocated nebulised MgSO(4), 357 (91%) patients allocated intravenous MgSO(4), and 323 (90%) controls. Rates of hospital admission did not differ between patients treated with either form of MgSO(4) compared with controls or between those treated with nebulised MgSO(4) and intravenous MgSO(4). Change in VAS breathlessness did not differ between active treatments and control, but change in VAS was greater for patients in the intravenous MgSO(4) group than it was in the nebulised MgSO(4) group (5·1 mm, 0·8 to 9·4; p=0·019). Intravenous or nebulised MgSO(4) did not significantly decrease rates of hospital admission and breathlessness compared with placebo: intravenous MgSO(4) was associated with an odds ratio of 0·73 (95% CI 0·51 to 1·04; p=0·083) for hospital admission and a change in VAS breathlessness of 2·6 mm (-1·6 to 6·8; p=0·231) compared with placebo; nebulised MgSO(4) was associated with an odds ratio of 0·96 (0·65 to 1·40; p=0·819) for hospital admission and a change in VAS breathlessness of -2·6 mm (-7·0 to 1·8; p=0·253) compared with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest nebulised MgSO(4) has no role in the management of severe acute asthma in adults and at best suggest only a limited role for intravenous MgSO(4) in this setting. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

A study exploring drug use and management of patients presenting to an inner city emergency department.

Patients who present to an emergency department (ED) with a problem related to illegal drug use can be difficult to identify and are perceived to generate a significant workload for staff. This study suggests that illicit drug use may be more common than previously reported and also that the impact on the ED is perceived by staff to be disproportionately high compared with the actual numbers of patients presenting with complaints related to illicit drug use. We conclude that the over estimation by staff is directly related to the challenges that staff working within the ED setting believe this group of patients pose.