Prehospital time for patients with acute cardiac complaints: A rural health disparity.

OBJECTIVE: Delays in care for patients with acute cardiac complaints are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to quantify rural and urban differences in prehospital time intervals for patients with cardiac complaints. METHODS: The ESO Data Collaborative dataset consisting of records from 1332 EMS agencies was queried for 9-1-1 encounters with acute cardiac problems among adults (age ≥ 18) from 1/1/2013-6/1/2018. Location was classified as rural or urban using the 2010 United States Census. The primary outcome was total prehospital time. Generalized estimating equations evaluated differences in the average times between rural and urban encounters while controlling for age, sex, race, transport mode, loaded mileage, and patient stability. RESULTS: Among 428,054 encounters, the median age was 62 (IQR 50-75) years with 50.7% female, 75.3% white, and 10.3% rural. The median total prehospital, response, scene, and transport times were 37.0 (IQR 29.0-48.0), 6.0 (IQR 4.0-9.0), 16.0 (IQR 12.0-21.0), and 13.0 (IQR 8.0-21.0) minutes. Rural patients had an average total prehospital time that was 16.76 min (95%CI 15.15-18.38) longer than urban patients. After adjusting for covariates, average total time was 5.08 (95%CI 4.37-5.78) minutes longer for rural patients. Average response and transport time were 4.36 (95%CI 3.83-4.89) and 0.62 (95%CI 0.33-0.90) minutes longer for rural patients. Scene time was similar in rural and urban patients (0.09 min, 95%CI -0.15-0.33). CONCLUSION: Rural patients with acute cardiac complaints experienced longer prehospital time than urban patients, even after accounting for other key variables, such as loaded mileage.

Prehospital Trauma Scene and Transport Times for Pediatric and Adult Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Increased out-of-hospital time is associated with worse outcomes in trauma. Sparse literature exists comparing prehospital scene and transport time management intervals between adult and pediatric trauma patients. National Emergency Medical Services guidelines recommend that trauma scene time be less than 10 minutes. The objective of this study was to examine prehospital time intervals in adult and pediatric trauma patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of blunt and penetrating trauma patients in a five-county region in North Carolina using prehospital records. We included patients who were transported emergency traffic directly from the scene by ground ambulance to a Level I or Level II trauma center between 2013-2018. We defined pediatric patients as those less than 16 years old. Urbanicity was controlled for using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid's Ambulance Fee Schedule. We performed descriptive statistics and linear mixed-effects regression modeling. RESULTS: A total of 2179 records met the study criteria, of which 2077 were used in the analysis. Mean scene time was 14.2 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.9-14.5) and 35.3% (n = 733) of encounters had a scene time of 10 minutes or less. Mean transport time was 17.5 minutes (95% CI, 17.0-17.9). Linear mixed-effects regression revealed that scene times were shorter for pediatric patients (p<0.0001), males (p=0.0016), penetrating injury (p<0.0001), and patients with blunt trauma in rural settings (p=0.005), and that transport times were shorter for males (p = 0.02), non-White patients (p<0.0001), and patients in urban areas (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study population largely missed the 10-minute scene time goal. Demographic and patient factors were associated with scene and transport times. Shorter scene times occurred with pediatric patients, males, and among those with penetrating trauma. Additionally, suffering blunt trauma while in a rural environment was associated with shorter scene time. Males, non-White patients, and patients in urban environments tended to have shorter transport times. Future studies with outcomes data are needed to identify factors that prolong out-of-hospital time and to assess the impact of out-of-hospital time on patient outcomes.

One-Year Mortality and Associated Factors in Patients Receiving Out-of-Hospital Naloxone for Presumed Opioid Overdose.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Out-of-hospital naloxone has been championed as a lifesaving solution during the opioid epidemic. However, the long-term outcomes of out-of-hospital naloxone recipients are unknown. The objectives of this study are to describe the 1-year mortality of presumed opioid overdose victims identified by receiving out-of-hospital naloxone and to determine which patient factors are associated with subsequent mortality. METHODS: This was a regional retrospective cohort study of out-of-hospital records from 7 North Carolina counties from January 1, 2015 to February 28, 2017. Patients who received out-of-hospital naloxone were included. Out-of-hospital providers subjectively assessed patients for improvement after administering naloxone. Naloxone recipients were cross-referenced with the North Carolina death index to examine mortality at days 0, 1, 30, and 365. Naloxone recipient mortality was compared with the age-adjusted, at-large population's mortality rate in 2017. Generalized estimating equations and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess for mortality-associated factors. RESULTS: Of 3,085 out-of-hospital naloxone encounters, 72.7% of patients (n=2,244) improved, whereas 27.3% (n=841) had no improvement with naloxone. At day 365, 12.0% (n=269) of the improved subgroup, 22.6% (n=190) of the no improvement subgroup, and 14.9% (n=459) of the whole population were dead. Naloxone recipients who improved were 13.2 times (95% confidence interval 13.0 to 13.3) more likely to be dead at 1 year than a member of the general populace after age adjusting of the at-large population to match this study population. Older age and being black were associated with 1-year mortality, whereas sex and multiple overdoses were not. CONCLUSION: Opioid overdose identified by receiving out-of-hospital naloxone with clinical improvement carries a 13-fold increase in mortality compared to the general population. This suggests that this is a high-risk population that deserves attention from public health officials, policymakers, and health care providers in regard to the development of long-term solutions.