Comparison of Law Enforcement Officer versus Emergency Medical Services Placed Tourniquets.

INTRODUCTION: Tourniquet (TQ) use for hemorrhage control is a core skill for many law enforcement officers (LEO) and all emergency medical services (EMS) providers. However, LEO TQ training is not as intensive as EMS. Overuse of TQ can result in over triage. We hypothesize that LEO are more liberal than EMS with TQ placement. METHODS: A seven-year retrospective, single center study of adult patients who had a TQ placed in the field was conducted. Data were stratified by provider who placed the TQ. Patient demographics, body location where the TQ was placed, hospital location where the TQ was removed, incidence of recurrent bleeding and need for operative control of bleeding, and name of injured vessel were recorded. Data were analyzed using student t-test and Chi-square tests. RESULTS: 192 patients had 197 TQ placed (LEO 77 (40%) and EMS 120 (63%). Most TQ were placed on the thigh. There was no difference in body mass index but the EMS cohort had a higher injury severity score (9.4 v 6.5, p = 0.03) and extremity abbreviated injury severity score (2.4 v 1.9, p = 0.007). LEO placed TQ were more commonly removed in the trauma bay (83% v 73%, p = 0.03). EMS placed TQ were more likely to require operative control of bleeding (23% v 6%, p = 0.003). There were no complications related to TQ use in either arm. CONCLUSIONS: LEO are more likely than EMS to place tourniquets without injury to a named vessel or the presence of severe bleeding. LEO need better training to determine when a TQ is needed. EMS should be allowed to remove TQ if appropriate. Studies on the impact of over triage based on TQ use are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, Level III.

Characteristics of survivors of civilian public mass shootings: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Firearm injury remains a public health crisis. Whereas there have been studies evaluating causes of death in victims of civilian public mass shootings (CPMSs), there are no large studies evaluating injuries sustained and treatments rendered in survivors. The purpose of this study was to describe these characteristics to inform ideal preparation for these events. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective study of CPMS survivors who were treated at designated trauma centers from July 1, 1999 to December 31, 2017, was performed. Prehospital and hospital variables were collected. Data are reported as median (25th percentile, 75th percentile interquartile range), and statistical analyses were carried out using Mann-Whitney U, χ2, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Patients who died before discharge from the hospital were excluded. RESULTS: Thirty-one events involving 191 patients were studied. The median number of patients seen per event was 20 (5, 106), distance to each hospital was 6 (6, 10) miles, time to arrival was 56 (37, 90) minutes, number of wounds per patient was 1 (1, 2), and Injury Severity Score was 5 (1, 17). The most common injuries were extremity fracture (37%) and lung parenchyma (14%). Twenty-nine percent of patients did not receive paramedic-level prehospital treatment. Following arrival to the hospital, 27% were discharged from the emergency department, 32% were taken directly to the operating room/interventional radiology, 16% were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 25% were admitted to the ward. Forty percent did not require advanced treatment within 12 hours. The most common operations performed within 12 hours of arrival were orthopedic (15%) and laparotomy (15%). The most common specialties consulted were orthopedics (38%) and mental health (17%). CONCLUSION: Few CPMS survivors are critically injured. There is significant delay between shooting and transport. Revised triage criteria and a focus on rapid transport of the few severely injured patients are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Interhospital Transfer of Critically Ill Patients Because of Coronavirus Disease 19-Related Respiratory Failure.

OBJECTIVE: Interfacility transfer of patients with coronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory failure is high risk because of the severity of respiratory failure and potential for crew exposure. This article describes a hospital-based transport team's experience with interfacility transport of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive patients. METHODS: A retrospective study of transports for respiratory failure caused by SARS-CoV-2 was performed. All transports were performed by a single critical care transport team. The team was already trained in advanced mechanical ventilation, blood gas interpretation, and management of shock. Guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was followed regarding the use of personal protective equipment. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled. The average patient age was 47 years (standard deviation [SD] = 12 years). The average Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were 10 (SD = 4) and 24 (SD = 7), respectively. The average transport distance and time were 18 miles (SD = 9 miles) and 25 minutes (SD = 11 minutes), respectively. Nineteen patients were intubated, 9 of whom required advanced ventilation. Two patients were transported prone. One patient experienced unintentional extubation upon transfer from the stretcher to the destination facility bed. The patient was reintubated without event. No crewmembers contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSION: Interfacility transfer of severely ill SARS-CoV-2-positive patients is safe and feasible.

Comparison of the causes of death and wounding patterns in urban firearm-related violence and civilian public mass shooting events.

BACKGROUND: There are no reports comparing wounding pattern in urban and public mass shooting events (CPMS). Because CPMS receive greater media coverage, there is a connation that the nature of wounding is more grave than daily urban gun violence. We hypothesize that the mechanism of death following urban gunshot wounds (GSWs) is the same as has been reported following CPMS. METHODS: Autopsy reports of all firearm-related deaths in Washington, DC were reviewed from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017. Demographic data, firearm type, number and anatomic location of GSWs, and organ(s) injured were abstracted. The organ injury resulting in death was noted. The results were compared with a previously published study of 19 CPMS events involving 213 victims. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-six urban autopsy reports were reviewed. There were 171 (92%) homicides and 13 (7%) suicides. Handguns were implicated in 180 (97%) events. One hundred eight (59%) gunshots were to the chest/upper back, 85 (46%) to the head, 77 (42%) to an extremity, and 71 (38%) to the abdomen/lower back. The leading mechanisms of death in both urban firearm violence and CPMS were injury to the brain, lung parenchyma, and heart. Fatal brain injury was more common in CPMS events as compared with urban events involving a handgun. CONCLUSION: There is little difference in wounding pattern between urban and CPMS firearm events. Based on the organs injured, rapid point of wounding care and transport to a trauma center remain the best options for mitigating death following all GSW events. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level IV.

Incidence and Cause of Potentially Preventable Death after Civilian Public Mass Shooting in the US.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and severity of civilian public mass shooting (CPMS) events continue to rise. Understanding the wounding pattern and incidence of potentially preventable death (PPD) after CPMS is key to updating prehospital response strategy. METHODS: A retrospective study of autopsy reports after CPMS events identified via the Federal Bureau of Investigation CPMS database from December 1999 to December 31, 2017 was performed. Sites of injury, fatal injury, and incidence of PPD were determined independently by a multidisciplinary panel composed of trauma surgery, emergency medicine, critical care paramedicine, and forensic pathology. RESULTS: Nineteen events including 213 victims were reviewed. Mean number of gunshot wounds per victim was 4.1. Sixty-four percent of gunshots were to the head and torso. The most common cause of death was brain injury (52%). Only 12% (26 victims) were transported to the hospital and the PPD rate was 15% (32 victims). The most commonly injured organs in those with PPD were the lung (59%) and spinal cord (24%). Only 6% of PPD victims had a gunshot to a vascular structure in an extremity. CONCLUSIONS: The PPD rate after CPMS is high and is due mostly to non-hemorrhaging chest wounds. Prehospital care strategy should focus on immediate point of wounding care by both laypersons and medical personnel, as well as rapid extrication of victims to definitive medical care.

Wounding Patterns Based on Firearm Type in Civilian Public Mass Shootings in the United States.

BACKGROUND: There are no studies correlating wounding pattern or probability of death based on firearm type used in civilian public mass shooting (CPMS) events. Previous studies on non-CPMS events found that handguns are more lethal than rifles. We hypothesized that CPMS events associated with a handgun are also more lethal than those associated with a rifle. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study of autopsy reports from CPMS events was performed; CPMS was defined using the FBI and the Congressional Research Service definition. Site(s) of injury, site(s) of fatal injury, and presence of potentially preventable death (PPD) were determined independently by each author and cross-referenced to firearm type used. RESULTS: Autopsy reports of 232 victims from 23 events were reviewed. Seventy-three victims (31%) were shot by handguns, 105 (45%) by rifles, 22 (9%) by shotguns, and 32 (14%) by multiple firearms. Events using a handgun were associated with a higher percentage killed, and events using a rifle were associated with more people shot, although neither difference reached statistical significance. Victims shot by handguns had the highest percentage of having more than 1 fatal wound (26%); those shot by rifle had the lowest percentage (2%) (p = 0.003). Thirty-eight victims (16%) were judged to have had a PPD. The probability of having a PPD was lowest for events involving a handgun (4%) and highest for events involving a rifle (23%) (p = 0.002). Wounding with a handgun was significantly associated with brain (p = 0.007) and cardiac injury (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Civilian public mass shooting events with a handgun are more lethal than those associated with use of a rifle.

Fatal Wounding Pattern and Causes of Potentially Preventable Death Following the Pulse Night Club Shooting Event.

BACKGROUND: Mortality following shooting is related to time to provision of initial and definitive care. An understanding of the wounding pattern, opportunities for rescue, and incidence of possibly preventable death is needed to achieve the goal of zero preventable deaths following trauma. METHODS: A retrospective study of autopsy reports for all victims involved in the Pulse Nightclub Shooting was performed. The site of injury, probable site of fatal injury, and presence of potentially survivable injury (defined as survival if prehospital care is provided within 10 minutes and trauma center care within 60 minutes of injury) was determined independently by each author. Wounds were considered fatal if they involved penetration of the heart, injury to any non-extremity major blood vessel, or bihemispheric, mid-brain, or brainstem injury. RESULTS: There were an average of 6.9 wounds per patient. Ninety percent had a gunshot to an extremity, 78% to the chest, 47% to the abdomen/pelvis, and 39% to the head. Sixteen patients (32%) had potentially survivable wounds, 9 (56%) of whom had torso injuries. Four patients had extremity injuries, 2 involved femoral vessels and 2 involved the axilla. No patients had documented tourniquets or wound packing prior to arrival to the hospital. One patient had an isolated C6 injury and 2 victims had unihemispheric gunshots to the head. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive strategy starting with civilian providers to provide care at the point of wounding along with a coordinated public safety approach to rapidly evacuate the wounded may increase survival in future events.

Ketamine in the Prehospital Environment: A National Survey of Paramedics in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Use of ketamine in the prehospital setting may be advantageous due to its potent analgesic and sedative properties and favorable risk profile. Use in the military setting has demonstrated both efficacy and safety for pain relief. The purpose of this study was to assess ketamine training, use, and perceptions in the civilian setting among nationally certified paramedics (NRPs) in the United States. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of NRPs was performed. The electronic questionnaire assessed paramedic training, authorization, use, and perceptions of ketamine. Included in the analysis were completed surveys of paramedics who held one or more state paramedic credentials, indicated "patient care provider" as their primary role, and worked in non-military settings. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 14,739 responses were obtained (response rate=23%), of which 10,737 (73%) met inclusion criteria and constituted the study cohort. Over one-half (53%) of paramedics reported learning about ketamine during their initial paramedic training. Meanwhile, 42% reported seeking ketamine-related education on their own. Of all respondents, only 33% (3,421/10,737) were authorized by protocol to use ketamine. Most commonly authorized uses included pain management (55%), rapid sequence intubation (RSI; 72%), and chemical restraint/sedation (72%). One-third of authorized providers (1,107/3,350) had never administered ketamine, with another 32% (1,070/3,350) having administered ketamine less than five times in their career. Ketamine was perceived to be safe and effective as the vast majority reported that they were comfortable with the use of ketamine (94%) and would, in similar situations (95%), use it again. CONCLUSION: This was the first large, national survey to assess ketamine training, use, and perceptions among paramedics in the civilian prehospital setting. While training related to ketamine use was commonly reported among paramedics, few were authorized to administer the drug by their agency's protocols. Of those authorized to use ketamine, most paramedics had limited experience administering the drug. Future research is needed to determine why the prevalence of ketamine use is low and to assess the safety and efficacy of ketamine use in the prehospital setting. Buckland DM , Crowe RP , Cash RE , Gondek S , Maluso P , Sirajuddin S , Smith ER , Dangerfield P , Shapiro G , Wanka C , Panchal AR , Sarani B . Ketamine in the prehospital environment: a national survey of paramedics in the United States. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(1):23-28.

Integration of Tactical Emergency Casualty Care Into the National Tactical Emergency Medical Support Competency Domains.

Tactical emergency medical support (TEMS) is a critical component of the out-of-hospital response to domestic high-threat incidents such as hostage scenarios, warrant service, active shooter or violent incidents, terrorist attacks, and other intentional mass casualty-producing acts. From its grass-roots inception in the form of medical support of select law enforcement special weapons and tactics (SWAT) units in the 1980s, the TEMS subspecialty of prehospital care has rapidly grown and evolved over the past 40 years. The National TEMS Initiative and Council (NTIC) competencies and training objectives are the only published recommendations of their kind and offer the opportunity for national standardization of TEMS training programs and a future accreditation process. Building on the previous work of the NTIC and the creation of acknowledged competency domains for TEMS and the acknowledged civilian translation of TCCC by the Committee for Tactical Emergency Casualty Care (C-TECC), the Joint Review Committee (JRC) has created an opportunity to bring forward the work in a form that could be operationally useful in an all-hazards and whole of community format.

The profile of wounding in civilian public mass shooting fatalities.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and severity of civilian public mass shootings (CPMS) continue to rise. Initiatives predicated on lessons learned from military woundings have placed strong emphasis on hemorrhage control, especially via use of tourniquets, as means to improve survival. We hypothesize that both the overall wounding pattern and the specific fatal wounds in CPMS events are different from those in military combat fatalities and thus may require a new management strategy. METHODS: A retrospective study of autopsy reports for all victims involved in 12 CPMS events was performed. Civilian public mass shootings was defined using the FBI and the Congressional Research Service definition. The site of injury, probable site of fatal injury, and presence of potentially survivable injury (defined as survival if prehospital care is provided within 10 minutes and trauma center care within 60 minutes of injury) was determined independently by each author. RESULTS: A total 139 fatalities consisting of 371 wounds from 12 CPMS events were reviewed. All wounds were due to gunshots. Victims had an average of 2.7 gunshots. Relative to military reports, the case fatality rate was significantly higher, and incidence of potentially survivable injuries was significantly lower. Overall, 58% of victims had gunshots to the head and chest, and only 20% had extremity wounds. The probable site of fatal wounding was the head or chest in 77% of cases. Only 7% of victims had potentially survivable wounds. The most common site of potentially survivable injury was the chest (89%). No head injury was potentially survivable. There were no deaths due to exsanguination from an extremity. CONCLUSION: The overall and fatal wounding patterns following CPMS are different from those resulting from combat operations. Given that no deaths were due to extremity hemorrhage, a treatment strategy that goes beyond use of tourniquets is needed to rescue the few victims with potentially survivable injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level IV; therapeutic/care management study, level V.