Evaluating soft collars in pre-hospital cervical spine immobilisation: A cohort study on neurological outcomes, patient comfort and paramedic perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical spinal immobilisation procedures often include rigid cervical collars which, despite associated complications, may provide less immobilisation than previously thought. The present study reports the incidence of worsening neurological outcomes following soft collar application, and additionally reports patient comfort, compliance with spinal immobilisation, and paramedic perspectives on usage. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study conducted in selected metropolitan and regional areas of NSW Ambulance between 1 May 2022 and 31 March 2023. Soft collars were used exclusively in place of rigid collars. The SPEED (SPinal Emergency Evaluation of Deficits) tool was used to evaluate new or worsening neurological deficits following pre-hospital soft collar application. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported comfort of the device, and paramedic assessment of efficacy. RESULTS: Overall, 2098 soft collars were applied, of which 74 patients (3.5%) were subsequently found to have a cervical spine injury. Eight patients had a spinal cord injury, of which two experienced a worsening neurological deficit after soft collar application. In both instances, comprehensive case reviews determined that this was unlikely to have been attributable to the soft collar. The majority of patients found the soft collar comfortable, and they were well-tolerated by patients who generally complied with immobility directions. Paramedics found the collar easy to apply, and felt it assisted in minimising patient movement. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-hospital use of soft collars does not appear to increase the risk of significant injury. Patients found these devices relatively comfortable, and clinicians reported overall ease of use with good patient compliance with immobility directives.

Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation differences by sex - The role of arrest recognition.

PURPOSE: To assess whether bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) differed by patient sex among bystander-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA). METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of paramedic-attended OHCA in New South Wales (NSW) between January 2017 to December 2019 (restricted to bystander-witnessed cases). Exclusions included OHCA in aged care, medical facilities, with advance care directives, from non-medical causes. Multivariate logistic regression examined the association of patient sex with bystander CPR. Secondary outcomes were OHCA recognition, bystander AED application, initial shockable rhythm, and survival outcomes. RESULTS: Of 4,491cases, females were less likely to receive bystander CPR in private residential (Adjusted Odds ratio [AOR]: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.70-0.95) and public locations (AOR: 0.58, 95%CI:0.39-0.88). OHCA recognition during the emergency call was lower for females arresting in public locations (84.6% vs 91.6%, p = 0.002) and this partially explained the association of sex with bystander CPR (∼44%). This difference in recognition was not observed in private residential locations (p = 0.2). Bystander AED use was lower for females (4.8% vs 9.6%, p < 0.001); however, after adjustment for location and other covariates, this relationship was no longer significant (AOR: 0.83, 95%CI: 0.60-1.12). Females were less likely to be in an initial shockable rhythm (AOR: 0.52, 95%CI: 0.44-0.61), but more likely to survive the event (AOR: 1.34, 95%CI: 1.15-1.56). There was no sex difference in survival to hospital discharge (AOR: 0.96, 95%CI: 0.77-1.19). CONCLUSION: OHCA recognition and bystander CPR differ by patient sex in NSW. Research is needed to understand why this difference occurs and to raise public awareness of this issue.

Perceptions and experiences of paramedics managing people with non-traumatic low back pain: a qualitative study of Australian paramedics.

BACKGROUND: Paramedics are often first providers of care to patients experiencing non-traumatic low back pain (LBP), though their perspectives and experiences with managing these cases remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study explored paramedic views of the management of non-traumatic LBP including their role and experience with LBP management, barriers to referral and awareness of ambulance service guidelines. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews conducted between January and April 2023. SETTING: New South Wales Ambulance service. PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample of 30 paramedics of different specialities employed by New South Wales Ambulance were recruited. RESULTS: Paramedic accounts demonstrated the complexity, challenge, frustration and reward associated with managing non-traumatic LBP. Paramedics perceived that their primary role focused on the assessment of LBP, and that calls to ambulance services were often driven by misconceptions surrounding the management of LBP, and a person's pain severity. Access to health services, patient factors, defensive medicine, paramedic training and education and knowledge of guidelines influenced paramedic management of LBP. CONCLUSION: Paramedics often provide care to non-traumatic LBP cases yet depending on the type of paramedic speciality find these cases to be frustrating, challenging or rewarding to manage due to barriers to referral including access to health services, location, patient factors and uncertainty relating to litigation. Future research should explore patient perspectives towards ambulance service use for the management of their LBP.