Emergency medical services Milestones 2.0: What has changed?

Background: Since 2015, development of competencies by emergency medical services (EMS) fellows have been evaluated using the EMS Milestones 1.0 developed by a working group consisting of relevant stakeholders convened by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Feedback from users and data collected from the milestones assessments in the interim indicated a need for revision of the original milestones. In May 2021, the Milestones 2.0 working group was convened for the purpose of revising this specialty-specific assessment tool. Methods: A working group consisting of representatives from American Board of Emergency Medicine, the Review Committee for Emergency Medicine, and volunteers selected by the ACGME Milestones Committee, chaired by the ACGME vice president for milestones development, was convened using a virtual platform to revise the milestones and develop a supplemental guide for use along with the Milestones 2.0. There were no in-person meetings of this working group due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Data from milestones reporting, discussion within the working group, stakeholder input, and public commentary were used to revise the original milestones. A new supplemental guide to enhance milestone usability and provide recommended resource materials was also developed for use alongside the milestones. Discussion: The EMS Milestones 2.0 and accompanying supplemental guide provide an updated framework for fellowship programs to use as a guide for developing the competencies necessary for independent practice as EMS physicians and in the formal, competency-based evaluation of trainees as required by the ACGME.

The 2019 Core Content of Emergency Medical Services Medicine.

On March 13, 2019 the EMS Examination Committee of the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) approved modifications to the Core Content of EMS Medicine. The Core Content is used to define the subspecialty of EMS Medicine, provides the basis for questions to be used during written examinations, and leads to development of a certification examination blueprint. The Core Content defines the universe of knowledge for the treatment of prehospital patients that is necessary to practice EMS Medicine. It informs fellowship directors and candidates for certification of the full range of content that might appear on certification examinations.

Development of an EMS curriculum.

Emergency medical services (EMS) became an American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) approved subspecialty of emergency medicine in September 2010. Achieving specialty or subspecialty recognition in an area of medical practice requires a unique body of knowledge, a scientific basis for the practice, a significant number of physicians who dedicate a portion of their practice to the area, and a sufficient number of fellowship programs. To prepare EMS fellows for successful completion of fellowship training, a lifetime of subspecialty practice, and certification examination, a formalized structured fellowship curriculum is necessary. A functional curriculum is one that takes the entire body of knowledge necessary to appropriately practice in the identified area and codifies it into a training blueprint to ensure that all of the items are covered over the prescribed training period. A curriculum can be as detailed as desired but typically all major headings and subheadings of the core content are identified and addressed. Common curricular components, specific to each area of the core content, include goals and objectives, implementation methods, evaluation, and outcomes assessment methods. Implementation methods can include simulation, observations, didactics, and experiential elements. Evaluation and outcomes assessment methods can include direct observation of patient assessment and treatment skills, structured patient simulations, 360° feedback, written and oral testing, and retrospective chart reviews. This paper describes a curriculum that is congruent with the current EMS core content, as well as providing a 12-month format to deploy the curriculum in an EMS fellowship program. Key words: curriculum; education; emergency medical services; fellowships and scholarships.

The core content of emergency medical services medicine.

On September 23, 2010, the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) approved emergency medical services (EMS) as a subspecialty of emergency medicine. As a result, the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) is planning to award the first certificates in EMS medicine in the fall of 2013. The purpose of subspecialty certification in EMS, as defined by ABEM, is to standardize physician training and qualifications for EMS practice, to improve patient safety and enhance the quality of emergency medical care provided to patients in the prehospital environment, and to facilitate integration of prehospital patient treatment into the continuum of patient care. In February 2011, ABEM established the EMS Examination Task Force to develop the Core Content of EMS Medicine (Core Content) that would be used to define the subspecialty and from which questions would be written for the examinations, to develop a blueprint for the examinations, and to develop a bank of test questions for use on the examinations. The Core Content defines the training parameters, resources, and knowledge of the treatment of prehospital patients necessary to practice EMS medicine. Additionally, it is intended to inform fellowship directors and candidates for certification of the full range of content that might appear on the examinations. This article describes the development of the Core Content and presents the Core Content in its entirety.

Conductive electrical devices: a prospective, population-based study of the medical safety of law enforcement use.

BACKGROUND: To examine police compliance with policies for the proper use of conductive electrical devices (CEDs) and, in turn, track any associated medical events following CED application. METHODS: Prospective, population-based, 15-month study of police activations of CEDs after their introduction into the police force of a large U.S. city (residential population, 1.25 million). Local policy for use was consistent with the recommendations of International Association of Chiefs of Police. Data collected included age, sex, predefined rationale for use, target distance, activation duration, total energy delivered, policy compliance, and medical findings or events within the first 12 hours. RESULTS: Among 426 consecutive CED activations (November 1, 2004 through January 31, 2006), the suspects' mean age (years +/- standard deviation) was 30 +/- 10 (range, 13-72) years and 90.4% were male. Suspects' mean distance from the officer was 5.0 +/- 4.5 feet (range, 0-21). Reasons for use included: evading or resisting arrest (33.3%, n = 142), public intoxication or disorderly conduct (15.8%, n = 76), interrupting a felony in progress (9.3%, n = 45), and interrupting an assault on an officer or public servant (6.0%, n = 29). Mean total duration of exposures was 8.6 +/- 5.9 seconds, and total energy delivered per suspect was 227 +/- 156 joules. Officers followed policy in all cases and, accordingly, all suspects rapidly received medical evaluation or simple first aid. No suspect required further treatment except one who was later found to have severe toxic hyperthermia and who died within 2 hours of activation despite rapid on-scene intervention. In 5.4% of deployments (n = 23), CED use was deemed to have clearly prevented the use of lethal force by police. CONCLUSION: Police were compliant with policy in all cases, and, in addition to avoiding the use of lethal force in a significant number of circumstances, the safety of CED use was demonstrated despite one death subsequently attributed to lethal toxic hyperthermia. Collaborative nationwide research using similar registries is strongly recommended to document compliance and ensure ongoing safety monitoring.

Alternate site surge capacity in times of public health disaster maintains trauma center and emergency department integrity: Hurricane Katrina.

BACKGROUND: Hospital surge capacity has been advocated to accommodate large increases in demand for healthcare; however, existing urban trauma centers and emergency departments (TC/EDs) face barriers to providing timely care even at baseline patient volumes. The purpose of this study is to describe how alternate-site medical surge capacity absorbed large patient volumes while minimizing impact on routine TC/ED operations immediately after Hurricane Katrina. METHODS: From September 1 to 16, 2005, an alternate site for medical care was established. Using an off-site space, the Dallas Convention Center Medical Unit (DCCMU) was established to meet the increased demand for care. Data were collected and compared with TC/ED patient volumes to assess impact on existing facilities. RESULTS: During the study period, 23,231 persons displaced by Hurricane Katrina were registered to receive evacuee services in the City of Dallas, Texas. From those displaced, 10,367 visits for emergent or urgent healthcare were seen at the DCCMU. The mean number of daily visits (mean +/- SD) to the DCCMU was 619 +/- 301 visits with a peak on day 3 (n = 1,125). No patients died, 3.2% (n = 257) were observed in the DCCMU, and only 2.9% (n = 236) required transport to a TC/ED. During the same period, the mean number of TC/ED visits at the region's primary provider of indigent care (Hospital 1) was 346 +/- 36 visits. Using historical data from Hospital 1 during the same period of time (341 +/- 41), there was no significant difference in the mean number of TC/ED visits from the previous year (p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Alternate-site medical surge capacity provides for safe and effective delivery of care to a large influx of patients seeking urgent and emergent care. This protects the integrity of existing public hospital TC/ED infrastructure and ongoing operations.

Evolution of statewide EMS drug formularies and regulations.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize and follow the variability present in statewide emergency medical services (EMS) medication formularies across the United States over a ten-year period. METHODS: Investigators contacted the lead EMS agencies in all 50 states during three years (1992, 1997, and 2002). Using a standardized form, the investigators collected information about each state's prehospital medication policies, including whether a statewide EMS medication formulary existed, the authority of local medical directors to modify it, and what medications it contained. The investigators then sorted states into categories based on the regulatory intent of their EMS medication policies and compared medication listings across years. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from all 50 states (n = 50, 100%) during each of the survey periods. There appeared to be a trend toward stricter state control and toward less variation between statewide formularies. State regulations in seven states stopped allowing local medical directors to retain full control of their systems' formularies, and eight states implemented mandatory statewide formularies. There was a trend toward more consistency between states, with more "most commonly" listed medications (6.9% in 1992 versus 22.1% in 2002) and fewer "least commonly" listed medications (58.3% in 1992 versus 42.3% in 2002). Controversial medications such as neuromuscular blockers and thrombolytics appeared in a small but increasing number of statewide formularies. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation was found among statewide EMS medication formularies, both in how they were established and in their contents. Although several states continued to rely solely on local medical direction, there seemed to be a trend toward more uniformity and stricter state control over prehospital medication formularies during the study period.

Tactical emergency medical support.

As increases in criminal activity collide with more aggressive law enforcement postures, there is more contact between police officers and violent felons. Civilian law enforcement special operations teams routinely engage suspects in these violent, dynamic, and complex interdiction activities. Along with these activities comes the substantial and foreseeable risk of death or grievous harm to law officers, bystanders, hostages, or perpetrators. Further, law enforcement agencies who attempt to apprehend dangerous, heavily armed criminals with a special operations team that lacks the expertise to treat the medical consequences that may arise from such a confrontation may be negligent of deliberate indifference. Meanwhile, evidence exists within the military, civilian law enforcement, and medical literature that on-scene TEMS serves to improve mission success and team safety and health, while decreasing morbidity and mortality in the event of an injury or illness suffered during operations. National professional organizations within law enforcement and emergency medicine have identified and support the fundamental need for mission safety and the development of a standard model to train and incorporate TEMS into law enforcement special operations. The overall objective of TEMS is to minimize the potential for injury and illness and to promote optimal medical care from the scene of operations to a definitive care facility. The design, staffing, and implementation of a TEMS program that maximally uses the community resources integrates previously disparate law enforcement, EMS, and emergency medical/trauma center functions to form a new continuum of care [55].