RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Early identification and fluid resuscitation are recognized performance measures within sepsis care. Despite fluid resuscitation, fluid goals are often not achieved in the prehospital environment. Furthermore, description of implementation process and evaluation of implementation success are historically underreported in prehospital research. The objective of this study was to contextualize and evaluate the system-wide implementation of a novel fluid resuscitation device, the LifeFlow PLUS®, in the treatment of prehospital sepsis patients. METHODS: A single urban emergency medical services (EMS) system internally decided to adopt a novel fluid resuscitation device. This EMS system added the device to the clinical care guidelines of suspected sepsis patients. Prior to and during implementation of the new guidelines, several strategies were undertaken to promote consistent, appropriate system-wide use of the device. A mixed methods study design was deployed. Surveys of EMS clinicians and leaders assessed perceptions of the device and sepsis education prior to field implementation of the device. Clinician and leader semi-structured interviews assessed implementation experience and device adoption. Document analysis evaluated deployment of implementation strategies. Data were triangulated to contextualize implementation and evaluate success. RESULTS: Clinician (88%) and leader (91%) confidence in appropriate clinician device use and device superiority for sepsis care (73 and 100%, respectively) were high. Clinicians (58%) were less likely to view the device as easy to implement compared to leaders (73%). Three themes were developed from semi-structured interviews, including "exposure" to the device, "reinforcing factors" to prompt device use, and "clinician buy-in." Twenty unique implementation strategies (e.g., dynamic trainings, mandating change) were used to promote successful system-wide device adoption. CONCLUSIONS: The overall implementation success of this novel fluid resuscitation device was moderate. Barriers to adoption included complexity of clinical decision-making and ease of device use. Facilitators to adoption included the use of multiple modes of education, clinical reminders, presenting evidence of device benefit, and prehospital culture. Prior to future prehospital implementation programs, EMS systems should focus on identifying and addressing key barriers and facilitators to improve adoption.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians are tasked with early fluid resuscitation for patients with sepsis. Traditional methods for prehospital fluid delivery are limited in speed and ease-of-use. We conducted a comparative effectiveness study of a novel rapid infusion device for prehospital fluid delivery in suspected sepsis patients. METHODS: This pre-post observational study evaluated a hand-operated, rapid infusion device in a single large EMS system from July 2021-July 2022. Prior to device deployment, EMS clinicians completed didactic and simulation-based device training. Data were extracted from the EMS electronic health record. Eligible patients included adults with suspected sepsis treated by EMS with intravenous fluids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving goal fluid volume (at least 500 mL) prior to hospital arrival. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, disposition, and length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare outcomes between 6-month pre- and post-implementation periods (July-December 2021 and February-July 2022, respectively), adjusting for patient demographics, abnormal prehospital vital signs, and EMS transport interval. RESULTS: Of 1,180 eligible patients (552 in the pre-implementation period; 628 in the post-implementation period), the mean age was 72 years old, 45% were female, and 25% were minority race-ethnicity. Median (interquartile range) fluid volume (in mL) increased between the pre- and post-implementation periods (600 [400,1,000] and 850 [500-1,000], respectively). Goal fluid volume was achieved in 70% of pre-implementation patients and 82% of post-implementation patients. In adjusted analysis, post-implementation patients were significantly more likely to receive goal fluid volume than pre-implementation patients (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51-2.66). Pre-post in-hospital mortality was not significantly different (aOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59-1.39). CONCLUSION: In a single EMS system, sepsis education and introduction of a rapid infusion device was associated with achieving goal fluid volume for suspected sepsis. Further research is needed to assess the clinical effectiveness of infusion device implementation to improve sepsis patient outcomes.