Centralized Ambulance Destination Determination: A Retrospective Data Analysis to Determine Impact on EMS System Distribution, Surge Events, and Diversion Status.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency medical services (EMS) systems can become impacted by sudden surges that can occur throughout the day, as well as by natural disasters and the current pandemic. Because of this, emergency department crowding and ambulance "bunching," or surges in ambulance-transported patients at receiving hospitals, can have a detrimental effect on patient care and financial implications for an EMS system. The Centralized Ambulance Destination Determination (CAD-D) project was initially created as a pilot project to look at the impact of an active, online base hospital physician and paramedic supervisor to direct patient destination and distribution, as a way to improve ambulance distribution, decrease surges at hospitals, and decrease diversion status. METHODS: The project was initiated March 17, 2020, with a six-week baseline period; it had three additional study phases where the CAD-D was recommended (Phase 1), mandatory (Phase 2), and modified (Phase 3), respectively. We used coefficients of variation (CV) statistical analysis to measure the relative variability between datasets (eg, CAD-D phases), with a lower variation showing better and more even distribution across the different hospitals. We used analysis of co-variability for the CV to determine whether level loading was improved systemwide across the three phases against the baseline period. The primary outcomes of this study were the following: to determine the impact of ambulance distribution across a geographical area by using the CV; to determine whether there was a decrease in surge rates at the busiest hospital in this area; and the effects on diversion. RESULTS: We calculated the CV of all ratios and used them as a measure of EMS patient distribution among hospitals. Mean CV was lower in Phase 2 as compared to baseline (1.56 vs 0.80 P < 0.05), and to baseline and Phase 3 (1.56 vs. 0.93, P <0.05). A lower CV indicates better distribution across more hospitals, instead of the EMS transports bunching at a few hospitals. Furthermore, the proportion of surge events was shown to be lower between baseline and Phase 1 (1.43 vs 0.77, P <0.05), baseline and Phase 2 (1.43 vs. 0.33, P < 0.05), and baseline and Phase 3 (1.43 vs 0.42, P < 0.05). Diversion was shown to increase over the system as a whole, despite decreased diversion rates at the busiest hospital in the system. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, we found that ambulance distribution increased across the system with the implementation of CAD-D, leading to better level loading. The surge rates decreased at some of the most impacted hospitals, while the rates of hospitals going on diversion paradoxically increased overall. Specifically, the results of this study showed that there was an improvement when comparing the CAD-D implementation vs the baseline period for both the ambulance distribution across the system (level loading/CV), and for surge events at three of the busiest hospitals in the system.

Paramedic knowledge, attitudes, and training in end-of-life care.

INTRODUCTION: Paramedics often are asked to care for patients at the end of life. To do this, they must communicate effectively with family and caregivers, understand their legal obligations, and know when to withhold unwanted interventions. The objectives of this study were to ascertain paramedics' attitudes toward end-of-life (EOL) situations and the frequency with which they encounter them; and to compare paramedics' preparation during training for a variety of EOL care skills. METHODS: A written survey was administered to a convenience sample of paramedics in two cities: Denver, Colorado and Los Angeles, California. Questions addressed: (1) attitudes toward EOL decision-making in prehospital settings; (2) experience (number of EOL situations experienced in the past two years); (3) importance of various EOL tasks in clinical practice (pronouncing and communicating death, ending resuscitation, honoring advance directives (ADs)); and (4) self-assessed preparation for these EOL tasks. For each task, importance and preparation were measured using a four-point Likert scale. Proportions were compared using McNemar chi-square statistics to identify areas of under- or over-preparation. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-six paramedics completed the survey. The mean age was 39 years (range 22-59 years), and 222 (94%) were male. Twenty percent had >20 years of experience. Almost all participants (95%; 95% CI = 91-97%) agreed that prehospital providers should honor field ADs, and more than half (59%; 95% CI = 52-65%) felt that providers should honor verbal wishes to limit resuscitation at the scene. Ninety-eight percent of the participants (95% CI = 96-100%) had questioned whether specific life support interventions were appropriate for patients who appeared to have a terminal disease. Twenty-six percent (95% CI = 20-32%) reported to have used their own judgment during the past two years to withhold or end resuscitation in a patient who appeared to have a terminal disease. Significant discrepancies between the importance in practice and the level of preparation during training for the four EOL situations included: (1) understanding ADs (75% very important vs. 40% well prepared; difference 35%: 95% CI = 26-43%); (2) knowing when to honor written ADs (90% very important vs. 59% well-prepared; difference 31%: 95% CI = 23-38%); and (3) verbal ADs (75% very important vs. 54%well-prepared, difference 21%: 95% CI = 12-29%); and (4) communicating death to family or friends (79% very important vs. 48% well prepared, difference 31%: 95% CI = 23-39%). Paramedics' preparation in EOL skills was significantly lower than that for clinical skills such as endotracheal intubation or defibrillation. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to include more training in EOL care into prehospital training curricula, including how to verify and apply ADs, when to withhold treatments, and how to discuss death with victims' family or friends.