How can quality be measured within a physician-led Community Emergency Medical service? A scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Quality measurement as part of quality improvement in healthcare is integral for service delivery and development. This is particularly pertinent for health services that deliver care in ways that differ from traditional practice. Community Emergency Medicine (CEM) is a novel and evolving concept of care delivered by services in parts of the UK and Ireland. This scoping review aims to provide a broad overview of how quality may be measured within services delivering CEM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The methodology follows both the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). It is guided by recognised work of Arksey and O'Malley and the guidelines developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Several databases will be searched: MEDLINE, EMbase, EMcare, CINAHL, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and grey literature. Search terms have been developed by representatives within Community Emergency Medicine services. Two reviewers will independently screen eligible studies for final study selection. Results will be collected and analysed in descriptive and tabular form to illustrate the breadth of quality indicators that may be applicable to CEM services. This scoping review protocol has been registered with the Open Science Framework platform (osf.io/e7qxg). DISCUSSION: This is the first stage of a larger research study aimed at developing national quality indicators for CEM. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide a comprehensive review of quality indicators that could be used within CEM. The results will be mapped using a framework and identify gaps in the literature to help guide future-focused research.

Bradycardia as a Rare Sign of Pulmonary Embolism: A Case Report of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis in Cardiac Arrest Using Point-of-Care Ultrasound.

We describe a case of cardiac arrest with pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis diagnosed by point-of-care ultrasound, which resulted in a favorable outcome. In this article, we have also delineated bradycardia as an atypical sign of pulmonary embolism and explained the potential mechanism behind it.

Delivering Community Emergency Medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: the Physician Response Unit.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented significant challenges to services providing emergency care, in both the community and hospital setting. The Physician Response Unit (PRU) is a Community Emergency Medicine model, working closely with community, hospital and pre-hospital services. In response to the pandemic, the PRU has been able to rapidly introduce novel pathways designed to support local emergency departments (EDs) and local emergency patients. The pathways are (1) supporting discharge from acute medical and older people's services wards into the community; (2) supporting acute oncology services; (3) supporting EDs; (4) supporting palliative care services. Establishing these pathways have facilitated a number of vulnerable patients to access patient-focussed and holistic definitive emergency care. The pathways have also allowed EDs to safely discharge patients to the community, and also mitigate some of the problems associated with trying to maintain isolation for vulnerable patients within the ED. Community Emergency Medicine models are able to reduce ED attendances and hospital admissions, and hence risk of crowding, as well as reducing nosocomial risks for patients who can have high-quality emergency care brought to them. This model may also provide various alternative solutions in the delivery of safe emergency care in the postpandemic healthcare landscape.

Community emergency medicine: taking the ED to the patient: a 12-month observational analysis of activity and impact of a physician response unit.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: International and national health policies advocate greater integration of emergency and community care. The Physician Response Unit (PRU) responds to 999 calls 'taking the Emergency Department to the patient'. Operational since 2001, the service was reconfigured in September 2017. This article presents service activity data and implications for the local health economy from the first year since remodelling. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive analysis of a prospectively maintained database was undertaken. Data collected included dispatch information, diagnostics and treatments undertaken, diagnosis and disposition. Treating clinical teams recorded judgments whether patients managed in the community would have been (1) conveyed to an emergency department (ED)and (2) admitted to hospital, in the absence of the PRU. Hospital Episode Statistics data and NHS referencing costs were used to estimate the monetary value of PRU activity. RESULTS: 1924 patients were attended, averaging 5.3 per day. 1289 (67.0%) patients were managed in the community. Based on the opinion of the treating team, 945 (73.3%) would otherwise have been conveyed to hospital, and 126 (9.7%) would subsequently have been admitted. The service was estimated to deliver a reduction of 868 inpatient bed days and generate a net economic benefit of £530 107. CONCLUSIONS: The PRU model provides community emergency medical care and early patient contact with a senior clinical decision-maker. It engages with community providers in order to manage 67.0% of patients in the community. We believe the PRU offers an effective model of community emergency medicine and helps to integrate local emergency and community providers.