Impact of drone-specific dispatch instructions on the safety and efficacy of drone-delivered emergency medical treatments: A randomized simulation pilot study.

Introduction: Medical drones have potential for improving the response times to out-of-hospital emergencies. However, widespread adoption is hindered by unanswered questions surrounding medical dispatch and bystander safety. This study evaluated the impact of novel drone-specific dispatch instructions (DSDI) on bystanders' ability to interact effectively with a medical drone and provide prompt, safe, and high-quality treatment in a simulated emergency scenario. We hypothesized DSDI would improve bystanders' performance and facilitate safer bystander-drone interactions. Methods: Twenty-four volunteers were randomized to receive either DSDI and standard Medical Priority Dispatch (MPD) instructions or MPD alone in a simulated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) or pediatric anaphylaxis.,3 Participants in the DSDI group received detailed instructions on locating and interacting with the drone and its enclosed medical kit. The simulations were video recorded. Participants completed a semi-structured interview and survey. Results: The addition of DSDI did not lead to statistically significant changes to the overall time to provide care in either the anaphylaxis or OHCA simulations. However, DSDI did have an impact on bystander safety. In the MPD only group, 50% (6/12) of participants ignored the audio and visual safety cues from the drone instead of waiting for it to be declared safe compared to no DSDI participants ignoring these safety cues. Conclusions: All participants successfully provided patient care. However, this study indicates that DSDI may be useful to ensure bystander safety and should be incorporated in the continued development of emergency medical drones.

Bystander interaction with a novel multipurpose medical drone: A simulation trial.

Intro: Medical drones are an emerging technology which may facilitate rapid treatment in time-sensitive emergencies. However, drones rely on lay rescuers, whose interactions with multipurpose medical drones have not been studied, and the optimal drone design remains unclear. Methods: We conducted 24 simulations of adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and pediatric anaphylaxis with a prototype drone equipped with spoken and visual cues and a multipurpose medical kit. 24 layperson volunteers encountered one of the two scenarios and were supported through administering treatment by a simulated 911 dispatcher. Bystander-drone interactions were evaluated via a convergent parallel mixed methods approach using surveys, video event review, and semi-structured interviews. Results: 83% (20/24) of participants voiced comfort interacting with the drone. 96% (23/24) were interested in future interaction. Participants appreciated the drone's spoken instructions but found visual cues confusing. Participants retrieved the medical kit from the drone in a mean of 5 seconds (range 2-14) of drone contact; 79% (19/24) found this step easy or very easy. The medical kit's layered design caused difficulty in retrieving appropriate equipment. Participants expressed a wide range of reactions to the unique drone design. Conclusions: Laypeople can effectively and comfortably interact with a medical drone with a novel design. Feedback on design elements will result in further refinements and valuable insights for other drone designers. A multipurpose medical kit created more challenges and indicates the need for further refinement to facilitate use of the equipment.

Early intranasal medication administration in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Two randomized simulation trials.

Objective: Intranasal medications have been proposed as adjuncts to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) care. We sought to quantify the effects of intranasal medication administration (INMA) in OHCA workflows. Methods: We conducted separate randomized OHCA simulation trials with lay rescuers (LRs) and first responders (FRs). Participants were randomized to groups performing hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)/automated external defibrillator with or without INMA during the second analysis phase. Time to compression following the second shock (CPR2) was the primary outcome and compression quality (chest compression rate (CCR) and fraction (CCF)) was the secondary outcome. We fit linear regression models adjusted for CPR training in the LR group and service years in the FR group. Results: Among LRs, INMA was associated with a significant increase in CPR2 (mean diff. 44.1 s, 95% CI: 14.9, 73.3), which persisted after adjustment (p = 0.005). We observed a significant decrease in CCR (INMA 95.1 compressions per min (cpm) vs control 104.2 cpm, mean diff. -9.1 cpm, 95% CI -16.6, -1.6) and CCF (INMA 62.4% vs control 69.8%, mean diff. -7.5%, 95% CI -12.0, -2.9). Among FRs, we found no significant CPR2 delays (mean diff. -2.1 s, 95% CI -15.9, 11.7), which persisted after adjustment (p = 0.704), or difference in quality (CCR INMA 115.5 cpm vs control 120.8 cpm, mean diff. -5.3 cpm, 95% CI -12.6, 2.0; CCF INMA 79.6% vs control 81.2% mean diff. -1.6%, 95% CI -7.4, 4.3%). Conclusions: INMA in LR resuscitation was associated with diminished resuscitation performance. INMA by FR did not impede key times or quality.