A Quality Improvement Initiative to Increase Confirmation of Prehospital Endotracheal Tube Placement at Emergency Department Transfer of Care.

OBJECTIVES: Rates of prehospital unplanned extubation (UE) range from 0 to 25% and are the result of many factors, including patient movement. Transfer of care of intubated patients to the emergency department (ED) involves significant patient movement and represents a high-risk event for UE. Frequent confirmation of endotracheal tube (ETT) placement is imperative for early recognition of UE and to minimize patient harm. METHODS: Local Practice-Our baseline rate of verbal ETT position confirmation with a member of the ED team during ED transfer of care was 74%. Our goal was to increase this practice to >90% in six months. This project was completed in partnership with Toronto Paramedic Services. Prehospital electronic patient care records (ePCRs) were reviewed weekly to determine the proportion of intubated patients who had ETT placement confirmed in the ED at transfer of care. Interventions-Pre- and post-project paramedic focus groups were conducted to identify potential drivers, change ideas, and project feedback. Three staggered interventions were introduced over five months: (1) memorandums to paramedics, ED chiefs and respiratory therapy leads, (2) individualized paramedic feedback e-mails, and (3) ePCR changes and closing rules. RESULTS: The pre-project focus group identified several potential drivers, such as physical barriers, interprofessional relationships, and communication. ETT confirmation remained ≥90% for the last eight weeks and interventions resulted in special cause variation. Median cases without verbal confirmation between paramedics and ED staff reduced from 5/week (IQR 2.5, 6.5) to 1/week (IQR 0, 2). UE was identified in 0.6% (2/340) of patients with ETT confirmation. The post-project focus group noted improvements in perceived accountability, interprofessional relationships, and satisfaction with interventions. CONCLUSION: Through a series of interventions, we improved the rate of ETT confirmation during ED transfer of care. Although rates of UE were low, improvement in ETT confirmation may lead to faster recognition of UE when it does occur thereby mitigating complications. The observed improvement was sustained after interventions ended.

Evaluating Firefighter On-Scene Decontamination Practices Using a National Fire Records Management System.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes firefighters' on-scene decontamination procedure use post-working fire and frequency of adherence to best practice. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of working fires was conducted using records from the ESO Data Collaborative (Austin, TX) national research database from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. Documentation of decontamination procedures was examined among records with smoke or combustion products exposure. Firefighter and incident characteristics were evaluated. Descriptive statistics and univariable odds ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 31,281 firefighters included in the study, 8.0% documented a fire-related exposure. Of those, 82% performed at least one on-scene decontamination procedure; 5% documented all decontamination procedures defined as best practices. The odds of documenting any decontamination procedure were significantly decreased among firefighters responding to incidents in rural areas compared with urban areas (odds ratio, 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Fire personnel may not be taking all necessary decontamination steps post-working fires.

Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Out-of-Hospital Pain Management for Patients With Long Bone Fractures.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate racial and ethnic disparities in out-of-hospital analgesic administration, accounting for the influence of clinical characteristics and community socioeconomic vulnerability, among a national cohort of patients with long bone fractures. METHODS: Using the 2019-2020 ESO Data Collaborative, we retrospectively analyzed emergency medical services (EMS) records for 9-1-1 advanced life support transport of adult patients diagnosed with long bone fractures at the emergency department. We calculated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for out-of-hospital analgesic administration by race and ethnicity, accounting for age, sex, insurance, fracture location, transport time, pain severity, and scene Social Vulnerability Index. We reviewed a random sample of EMS narratives without analgesic administration to identify whether other clinical factors or patient preferences could explain differences in analgesic administration by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: Among 35,711 patients transported by 400 EMS agencies, 81% were White, non-Hispanic, 10% were Black, non-Hispanic, and 7% were Hispanic. In crude analyses, Black, non-Hispanic patients with severe pain were less likely to receive analgesics compared with White, non-Hispanic patients (59% versus 72%; Risk Difference: -12.5%, 95% CI: -15.8% to -9.9%). After adjustment, Black, non-Hispanic patients remained less likely to receive analgesics compared with White, non-Hispanic patients (aOR:0.65, 95% CI:0.53 to 0.79). Narrative review identified similar rates of patients declining analgesics offered by EMS and analgesic contraindications across racial and ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among EMS patients with long bone fractures, Black, non-Hispanic patients were substantially less likely to receive out-of-hospital analgesics compared with White, non-Hispanic patients. These disparities were not explained by differences in clinical presentations, patient preferences, or community socioeconomic conditions.

Patient Outcomes Based on the 2011 CDC Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients drive the destination decision for millions of emergency medical services (EMS)-transported trauma patients annually, yet limited information exists regarding performance and relationship with patient outcomes as a whole. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of positive findings on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients with hospitalization and mortality. METHODS: This retrospective study included all 911 responses from the 2019 ESO Data Collaborative research dataset with complete Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients and linked emergency department dispositions, excluding children and cardiac arrests prior to EMS arrival. Patients were categorized by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients step(s) met. Outcomes were hospitalization and emergency department or inhospital mortality. RESULTS: There were 86,462 records included: n = 65,967 (76.3%) met no criteria, n = 16,443 (19.0%) met one step (n = 1,571 [9.6%] vitals, n = 1,030 [6.3%] anatomy of injury, n = 993 [6.0%] mechanism of injury, and n = 12,849 [78.1%] special considerations), and n = 4,052 (4.7%) met multiple. Compared with meeting no criteria, hospitalization odds increased threefold for vitals (odds ratio [OR]: 3.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.77-3.40), fourfold for anatomy of injury (OR: 3.94, 95% CI: 3.48-4.46), twofold for mechanism of injury (OR: 2.00, 95% CI: 1.74-2.29), or special considerations (OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 2.36-2.56). Hospitalization odds increased ninefold when positive in multiple steps (OR: 8.97, 95% CI: 8.37-9.62). Overall, n = 84,473 (97.7%) had mortality data available, and n = 886 (1.0%) died. When compared with meeting no criteria, mortality odds increased 10-fold when positive in vitals (OR: 9.58, 95% CI: 7.30-12.56), twofold for anatomy of injury (OR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.28-4.29), or special considerations (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.71-2.60). There was no difference when only positive for mechanism of injury (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.03-1.54). Mortality odds increased 23-fold when positive in multiple steps (OR: 22.7, 95% CI: 19.7-26.8). CONCLUSIONS: Patients meeting multiple Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients steps were at greater risk of hospitalization and death. When meeting only one step, anatomy of injury was associated with greater risk of hospitalization; vital sign criteria were associated with greater risk of mortality.

Adverse events following emergent prehospital sedation of patients with behavioral emergencies: A retrospective cohort study.

Background: Patients presenting to emergency medical services (EMS) with behavioral emergencies may require emergent sedation to facilitate care, but concerns about sedation-related adverse events (AEs) exist. This study aimed to describe the frequency of AEs following emergent prehospital sedation with three types of sedative agents: ketamine, benzodiazepines and antipsychotics. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients ≥ 15 years who presented to 1031U.S. EMS agencies in calendar year 2019 with behavioral emergencies necessitating emergent prehospital sedation. Serious AEs (SAE) included cardiac arrest, invasive airway placement, and severe oxygen desaturation (<75%). Less-serious AEs included positive pressure ventilation, any oxygen desaturation (<90%), oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal airway placement, and suctioning. The need for additional sedation was also assessed. Findings: Of 7973 patients, 1996 received ketamine; 4137 received a benzodiazepine; 1532 received an antipsychotic agent; and 308 received an indeterminant agent. Cardiac arrest occurred in 11 patients (0·1%) and any SAE occurred in 165 patients (2·1%). Invasive airway placement was more frequent with ketamine (40, 2·0%) compared with benzodiazepines (17, 0·4%) or antipsychotics (3, 0·2%). Oxygen desaturation below 75% also occurred more frequently with ketamine (51, 2·6%) than with benzodiazepines (52, 1·3%) or antipsychotics (14, 0·9%). Patients sedated with ketamine were less likely to require additional sedation. Propensity-matching to minimize potential confounding between patient condition, sedative choice and AEs did not meaningfully alter the results. Interpretation: Although SAEs were rare among patients receiving emergent prehospital sedation, prehospital clinicians should remain mindful of the potential risks and monitor patients closely. Funding: None.

Initial prehospital Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) to predict outcomes for COVID-19 patients.

OBJECTIVE: The Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) has not been widely studied for use in predicting outcomes of COVID-19 patients encountered in the prehospital setting. This study aimed to determine whether the first prehospital REMS could predict emergency department and hospital dispositions for COVID-19 patients transported by emergency medical services. METHODS: This retrospective study used linked prehospital and hospital records from the ESO Data Collaborative for all 911-initiated transports of patients with hospital COVID-19 diagnoses from July 1 to December 31, 2020. We calculated REMS with the first recorded prehospital values for each component. We calculated area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) for emergency department (ED) mortality, ED discharge, hospital mortality, and hospital length of stay (LOS). We determined optimal REMS cut-points using test characteristic curves. RESULTS: Among 13,830 included COVID-19 patients, median REMS was 6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 5-9). ED mortality was <1% (n = 80). REMS ≥9 predicted ED death (AUROC 0.79). One-quarter of patients (n = 3,419) were discharged from the ED with an optimal REMS cut-point of ≤5 (AUROC 0.72). Eighteen percent (n = 1,742) of admitted patients died. REMS ≥8 optimally predicted hospital mortality (AUROC 0.72). Median hospital LOS was 8.3 days (IQR: 4.1-14.8 days). REMS ≥7 predicted hospitalizations ≥3 days (AUROC 0.62). CONCLUSION: Initial prehospital REMS was modestly predictive of ED and hospital dispositions for patients with COVID-19. Prediction was stronger for outcomes more proximate to the first set of emergency medical services (EMS) vital signs. These findings highlight the potential value of first prehospital REMS for risk stratification of individual patients and system surveillance for resource planning related to COVID-19.

Out-of-Hospital Ketamine: Indications for Use, Patient Outcomes, and Associated Mortality.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe out-of-hospital ketamine use, patient outcomes, and the potential contribution of ketamine to patient death. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated consecutive occurrences of out-of-hospital ketamine administration from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 reported to the national ESO Data Collaborative (Austin, TX), a consortium of 1,322 emergency medical service agencies distributed throughout the United States. We descriptively assessed indications for ketamine administration, dosing, route, transport disposition, hypoxia, hypercapnia, and mortality. We reviewed cases involving patient death to determine whether ketamine could be excluded as a potential contributing factor. RESULTS: Indications for out-of-hospital ketamine administrations in our 11,291 patients were trauma/pain (49%; n=5,575), altered mental status/behavioral indications (34%; n=3,795), cardiovascular/pulmonary indications (13%; n=1,454), seizure (2%; n=248), and other (2%; n=219). The highest median dose was for altered mental status/behavioral indications at 3.7 mg/kg (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4 mg/kg). Over 99% of patients (n=11,274) were transported to a hospital. Following ketamine administration, hypoxia and hypercapnia were documented in 8.4% (n=897) and 17.2% (n=1,311) of patients, respectively. Eight on-scene and 120 in-hospital deaths were reviewed. Ketamine could not be excluded as a contributing factor in 2 on-scene deaths, representing 0.02% (95% confidence interval 0.00% to 0.07%) of those who received out-of-hospital ketamine. Among those with in-hospital data, ketamine could not be excluded as a contributing factor in 6 deaths (0.3%; 95% confidence interval 0.1% to 0.7%). CONCLUSION: In this large sample, out-of-hospital ketamine was administered for a variety of indications. Patient mortality was rare. Ketamine could not be ruled out as a contributing factor in 8 deaths, representing 0.07% of those who received ketamine.

Initial Prehospital Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) as a Predictor of Patient Outcomes.

Background: A standardized objective measure of prehospital patient risk of hospitalization or death is needed. The Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), a validated risk-stratification tool, has not been widely tested for prehospital use. This study's objective was to assess predictive characteristics of initial prehospital REMS for ED disposition and overall patient mortality. Methods: This retrospective analysis used linked prehospital and hospital data from the national ESO Data Collaborative. All 911 responses from 1/1/2019-12/31/2019 were included. REMS (0-26) was calculated using age and first prehospital values for: pulse rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and Glasgow Coma Scale. Non-transports, patients <18 and cardiac arrests prior to EMS arrival were excluded. The primary outcome was ED disposition, dichotomized to discharge versus admission, transfer, or death. The secondary outcome was overall survival to discharge (ED or inpatient). Transfers and records without inpatient disposition were excluded from the secondary analysis. Predictive ability was assessed using area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC). Optimal REMS cut points were determined using test characteristic curves. Univariable logistic regression modeling was used to quantify the association between initial prehospital REMS and each outcome. Results: Of 579,505 eligible records, 94,640 (16%) were excluded due to missing data needed to calculate REMS. Overall, 62% (n = 298,223) of patients were discharged from the ED, 36% (n = 175,212) were admitted, 2% (n = 10,499) were transferred, and 0.2% (n = 931) died in the ED. A REMS of 5 or lower demonstrated optimal statistical prediction for ED discharge versus not discharged (admission/transfer/death) (AUROC: 0.68). Patients with initial prehospital REMS of 5 or lower showed a three-fold increase in odds of ED discharge (OR: 3.28, 95%CI: 3.24-3.32). Of the 457,226 patients included in overall mortality analysis, >98% (n = 450,112) survived. AUROC of initial prehospital REMS for overall mortality was 0.79. A score 7 or lower was statistically optimal for predicting survival. Initial prehospital REMS of 7 or lower was associated with a five-fold increase in odds of overall survival (OR:5.41, 95%CI:5.15-5.69). Conclusion: Initial prehospital REMS was predictive of ED disposition and overall patient mortality, suggesting value as a risk-stratification measure for EMS agencies, systems and researchers.

The Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale Compared to Stroke Severity Tools for Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke Prediction.

BACKGROUND: Various screening tools, ranging in complexity, have been developed to predict large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke in the prehospital setting. Our objective was to determine whether newly-developed LVO stroke scales offer a clinically-meaningful advantage over the Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed prehospital patient care records linked with hospital data from 151 EMS agencies in the United States, between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. We compared the CPSS to the Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE), Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS), and the Vision, Aphasia, Neglect (VAN) assessment for LVO prediction. For each stroke scale, we used the intersection of sensitivity and specificity curves to determine optimal prediction cut-points. We used area under the ROC curve and 95% confidence intervals to assess for differences in discriminative ability between scales. RESULTS: We identified 13,596 prehospital records with one or more documented stroke scales of interest. Among these, 4,228 patients were diagnosed with stroke. Over half (57%, n = 2,415) of patients diagnosed with stroke experienced an acute ischemic stroke. Of patients with ischemic stroke, 26% (n = 628) were diagnosed with LVO. A CPSS score of 2 or higher demonstrated sensitivity = 69% and specificity = 78% for LVO. A RACE score of 4 or higher demonstrated sensitivity = 63%, specificity = 73%. A LAMS score of 3 or higher demonstrated sensitivity = 63%, specificity = 72% and a positive VAN score demonstrated sensitivity = 86%, specificity = 65%. Comparing the area under the ROC curve for each scale revealed no statistically significant differences in discriminative ability for LVO stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In this large sample of real-world prehospital patient encounters, the CPSS demonstrated similar predictive performance characteristics compared to the RACE, LAMS, and VAN for detecting LVO stroke. Prior to implementing a specific screening tool, EMS agencies should evaluate ease of use and associated implementation costs. Scored 0-3, the simple, widely-used CPSS may serve as a favorable prehospital screening instrument for LVO detection with a cut-point of 2 or higher maximizing the tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity.

COVID-19 Preliminary Case Series: Characteristics of EMS Encounters with Linked Hospital Diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the prehospital presentation, assessment, or treatment of patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this preliminary report is to describe prehospital encounters for patients with a COVID-19 hospital diagnosis and/or COVID-19 EMS suspicion versus those with neither a hospital diagnosis nor EMS suspicion of the disease. METHODS: This case series evaluated electronic patient care records from EMS agencies participating in a large national bi-directional data exchange. All records for 9-1-1 responses between March 1 and April 19, 2020, resulting in transport to a hospital, with at least one ICD-10 outcome returned via the data exchange were included. Hospital ICD-10 codes used to determine COVID-19 diagnoses included B97.2, B97.21, B97.29, B34.2, and U07.1. COVID-19 EMS suspicion was defined as a documented EMS primary or secondary impression of COVID-19, or indication of COVID-19 suspicion in the prehospital free-text narrative. Comparisons were stratified by COVID-19 hospital diagnosis and COVID-19 EMS suspicion. Descriptive and comparative statistics are presented. RESULTS: There were 84,540 EMS patient records with linked hospital ICD-10 codes included. Of those, 814 (1%) patients had a COVID-19 hospital diagnosis. Overall, COVID-19 EMS suspicion was documented for 3,204 (4%) patients. A COVID-19 EMS suspicion was documented for 636 (78%) of hospital diagnosed COVID-19 patients. Those with COVID-19 hospital diagnoses were more likely to present with tachycardia, tachypnea, hypoxia, and fever during the EMS encounter. EMS responses for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were also more likely to originate from a skilled nursing/assisted living facility. EMS PPE (eye protection, mask, or gown) use was more frequently documented on records of patients who had hospital diagnosed COVID-19. CONCLUSION: In this large sample of prehospital encounters, EMS COVID-19 suspicion demonstrated sensitivity of 78% and positive predictive value of 20% compared with hospital ICD-10 codes. These data indicate that EMS suspicion alone is insufficient to determine appropriate utilization of PPE.

Innovative Care Model to Improve Clinical Quality and Safety of Transitional Care: Early Outcomes.

One in five elderly patients returns to the hospital within 30 days of leaving. These rehospitalizations are a common and costly occurrence. A program developed to address problems in post-acute transitional care seems to be effective in reducing 30-day readmission rates for some Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries.

An Innovative Approach to Health Care Delivery for Patients with Chronic Conditions.

Although the health care reform movement has brought about positive changes, lingering inefficiencies and communication gaps continue to hamper system-wide progress toward achieving the overarching goal-higher quality health care and improved population health outcomes at a lower cost. The multiple interrelated barriers to improvement are most evident in care for the population of patients with multiple chronic conditions. During transitions of care, the lack of integration among various silos and inadequate communication among providers cause delays in delivering appropriate health care services to these vulnerable patients and their caregivers, diminishing positive health outcomes and driving costs ever higher. Long-entrenched acute care-focused treatment and reimbursement paradigms hamper more effective deployment of existing resources to improve the ongoing care of these patients. New models for care coordination during transitions, longitudinal high-risk care management, and unplanned acute episodic care have been conceived and piloted with promising results. Utilizing existing resources, Mobile Integrated Healthcare is an emerging model focused on closing these care gaps by means of a round-the-clock, technologically sophisticated, physician-led interprofessional team to manage care transitions and chronic care services on-site in patients' homes or workplaces.

Paramedic specialization: a strategy for better out-of-hospital care.

Demographic, economic, and political forces are driving significant change in the US health care system. Paramedics are a health profession currently providing advanced emergency care and medical transportation throughout the United States. As the health care system demands more team-based care in nonacute, community, interfacility, and tactical response settings, specialized paramedic practitioners could be a valuable and well-positioned resource to meet these needs. Currently, there is limited support for specialty certifications that demand appropriate education, training, or experience standards before specialized practice by paramedics. A fragmented approach to specialty paramedic practice currently exists across our country in which states, regulators, nonprofit organizations, and other health care professions influence and regulate the practice of paramedicine. Multiple other medical professions, however, have already developed effective systems over the last century that can be easily adapted to the practice of paramedicine. Paramedicine practitioners need to organize a profession-based specialty board to organize and standardize a specialty certification system that can be used on a national level.

When should you test for and treat hypoglycemia in prehospital seizure patients?

OBJECTIVES: Seizure is a frequent reason for activating the Emergency Medical System (EMS). Little is known about the frequency of seizure caused by hypoglycemia, yet many EMS protocols require glucose testing prior to treatment. We hypothesized that hypoglycemia is rare among EMS seizure patients and glucose testing results in delayed administration of benzodiazepines. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of a national ambulance service database encompassing 140 ALS capable EMS systems spanning 40 states and Washington DC. All prehospital calls from August 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012 with a primary or secondary impression of seizure that resulted in patient treatment or transport were included. Median regression with robust and cluster (EMS agency) adjusted standard errors was used to determine if time to benzodiazepine administration was significantly related to blood glucose testing. RESULTS: Of 2,052,534 total calls, 76,584 (3.7%) were for seizure with 53,505 (69.9%) of these having a glucose measurement recorded. Hypoglycemia (blood glucose <60 mg/dL) was present in 638 (1.2%; CI: 1.1, 1.3) patients and 478 (0.9%; CI: 0.8, 1.0) were treated with a glucose product. A benzodiazepine was administered to 73 (11.4%; CI: 9.0, 13.9) of the 638 hypoglycemic patients. Treatment of seizure patients with a benzodiazepine occurred in 6,389 (8.3%; CI: 8.1, 8.5) cases and treatment with a glucose product occurred in 975 (1.3%; CI: 1.2, 1.4) cases. Multivariable median regression showed that obtaining a blood glucose measurement prior to benzodiazepine administration compared to no glucose measurement or glucose measurement after benzodiazepine administration was independently associated with a 2.1 minute (CI: 1.5, 2.8) and 5.9 minute (CI: 5.3, 6.6) delay to benzodiazepine administration by EMS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of hypoglycemia were very low in patients treated by EMS for seizure. Glucose testing prior to benzodiazepine administration significantly increased the median time to benzodiazepine administration. Given the importance of rapid treatment of seizure in actively seizing patients, measurement of blood glucose prior to treating a seizure with a benzodiazepine is not supported by our study. EMS seizure protocols should be revisited.