The COVID-19 ambulance response assessment (CARA) study: a national survey of ambulance service healthcare professionals' preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic placed significant demand on the NHS, including ambulance services, but it is unclear how this affected ambulance service staff and paramedics in other clinical settings (e.g. urgent and primary care, armed services, prisons). This study aimed to measure the self-perceived preparedness and impact of the first wave of the pandemic on paramedics' psychological stress and perceived ability to deliver care. Methods: Ambulance clinicians and paramedics working in other healthcare settings were invited to participate in a three-phase sequential online survey during the acceleration (April 2020), peak (May 2020) and deceleration (September/October 2020) phases of the first wave of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom. Recruitment used social media, Trust internal bulletins and the College of Paramedics' communication channels, employing a convenience sampling strategy. Data were collected using purposively developed open- and closed-ended questions and the validated general health questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). Data were analysed using multi-level linear and logistic regression models. Results: Phase 1 recruited 3717 participants, reducing to 2709 (73%) by phase 2 and 2159 (58%) by phase 3. Participants were mostly male (58%, n = 2148) and registered paramedics (n = 1992, 54%). Mean (standard deviation) GHQ-12 scores were 16.5 (5.2) during phase 1, reducing to 15.2 (6.7) by phase 3. A total of 84% of participants (n = 3112) had a GHQ-12 score ≥ 12 during the first phase, indicating psychological distress. Participants that had higher GHQ-12 scores were feeling unprepared for the pandemic, and reported a lack of confidence in using personal protective equipment and managing cardiac arrests in confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients. Conclusions: Most participants reported psychological distress, the reasons for which are multi-factorial. Ambulance managers need to be aware of the risks to staff mental health and take action to mitigate these, to support staff in the delivery of unscheduled, emergency and urgent care under these additional pressures.

Prehospital optimal shock energy for defibrillation (POSED): A cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial.

Background: We explored the feasibility of a large-scale UK ambulance services trial of optimal defibrillation shock energy for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The primary objective of this feasibility study was to establish the number of eligible patients and the number recruited. Secondary outcomes were adherence to allocated treatment and data completeness. Methods: We conducted a three-arm parallel group cluster randomised controlled feasibility study in a single ambulance service in southern England. Adult patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treated for a shockable rhythm were included. Zoll X series defibrillators (clusters) were randomised to deliver 120-150-200 J, 150-200-200 J, or 200-200-200 J shock strategies. Results: Between March 2022 and February 2023, we randomised 38 eligible patients (120-150-200 J (n = 12), 150-200-200 J (n = 10), 200-200-200 J (n = 16)) to the study. The recruitment rate per cluster was 0.07 per month. The median patient age was 71 years (IQR 59-81 years); 79% were male. Twenty-eight cardiac arrests (74%) occurred in a private residence, 29 (76%) were witnessed and 32 (84%) patients received bystander CPR. Treatment adherence was 93% and completeness of clinical and electrical outcomes was 86%. At 30 days, 3/36 (8.3%) patients survived; we were unable to collect survival outcomes for two patients. Defibrillation data collection became difficult when defibrillators became separated from their allocated vehicles. Conclusion: We have demonstrated the feasibility of a cluster randomised controlled trial of optimal shock energy for defibrillation in a UK ambulance service. We have identified possible solutions to issues relating to trial design.

Route of drug administration in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PARAMEDIC-3).

Aims: The PARAMEDIC-3 trial evaluates the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an intraosseous first strategy, compared with an intravenous first strategy, for drug administration in adults who have sustained an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods: PARAMEDIC-3 is a pragmatic, allocation concealed, open-label, multi-centre, superiority randomised controlled trial. It will recruit 15,000 patients across English and Welsh ambulance services. Adults who have sustained an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are individually randomised to an intraosseous access first strategy or intravenous access first strategy in a 1:1 ratio through an opaque, sealed envelope system. The randomised allocation determines the route used for the first two attempts at vascular access. Participants are initially enrolled under a deferred consent model.The primary clinical-effectiveness outcome is survival at 30-days. Secondary outcomes include return of spontaneous circulation, neurological functional outcome, and health-related quality of life. Participants are followed-up to six-months following cardiac arrest. The primary health economic outcome is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Conclusion: The PARAMEDIC-3 trial will provide key information on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of drug route in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Trial registration: ISRCTN14223494, registered 16/08/2021, prospectively registered.

Cardiac Arrest Bundle of cARE Trial (CABARET) survey of current UK neuroprotective CPR practice.

Despite low out of hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) survival rates within the UK, animal studies hint at improved cerebral blood flow via a bundled neuroprotective CPR approach. The CABARET study introduces three key devices: the Head Up Position (HUP), Active Compression/Decompression (ACD) CPR, and the Impedance Threshold Device (ITD). A survey involving 27 UK pre-hospital critical care services indicated none are using these interventions widely, either alone or bundled. The CABARET team is now initiating a pilot study to investigate the feasibility of this CPR bundle, aiming to fill the prevailing evidence void in resuscitation research.

Trends in use of intraosseous and intravenous access in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest across English ambulance services: A registry-based, cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The optimum route for drug administration in cardiac arrest is unclear. Recent data suggest that use of the intraosseous route may be increasing. This study aimed to explore changes over time in use of the intraosseous and intravenous drug routes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in England. METHODS: We extracted data from the UK Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Outcomes registry. We included adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients between 2015-2020 who were treated by an English Emergency Medical Service that submitted vascular access route data to the registry. The primary outcome was any use of the intraosseous route during cardiac arrest. We used logistic regression models to describe the association between time (calendar month) and intraosseous use. RESULTS: We identified 75,343 adults in cardiac arrest treated by seven Emergency Medical Service systems between January 2015 and December 2020. The median age was 72 years, 64% were male and 23% presented in a shockable rhythm. Over the study period, the percentage of patients receiving intraosseous access increased from 22.8% in 2015 to 42.5% in 2020. For each study-month, the odds of receiving any intraosseous access increased by 1.019 (95% confidence interval 1.019 to 1.020, p < 0.001). This observed effect was consistent across sensitivity analyses. We observed a corresponding decrease in use of intravenous access. CONCLUSION: In England, the use of intraosseous access in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest has progressively increased over time. There is an urgent need for randomised controlled trials to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the different vascular access routes in cardiac arrest.

Remote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care (RECAP) risk prediction tool: derivation and real-world validation studies.

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of COVID-19 severity in the community is essential for patient care and requires COVID-19-specific risk prediction scores adequately validated in a community setting. Following a qualitative phase to identify signs, symptoms, and risk factors, we aimed to develop and validate two COVID-19-specific risk prediction scores. Remote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care-General Practice score (RECAP-GP; without peripheral oxygen saturation [SpO2]) and RECAP-oxygen saturation score (RECAP-O2; with SpO2). METHODS: RECAP was a prospective cohort study that used multivariable logistic regression. Data on signs and symptoms (predictors) of disease were collected from community-based patients with suspected COVID-19 via primary care electronic health records and linked with secondary data on hospital admission (outcome) within 28 days of symptom onset. Data sources for RECAP-GP were Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RCGP-RSC) primary care practices (development set), northwest London primary care practices (validation set), and the NHS COVID-19 Clinical Assessment Service (CCAS; validation set). The data source for RECAP-O2 was the Doctaly Assist platform (development set and validation set in subsequent sample). The two probabilistic risk prediction models were built by backwards elimination using the development sets and validated by application to the validation datasets. Estimated sample size per model, including the development and validation sets was 2880 people. FINDINGS: Data were available from 8311 individuals. Observations, such as SpO2, were mostly missing in the northwest London, RCGP-RSC, and CCAS data; however, SpO2 was available for 1364 (70·0%) of 1948 patients who used Doctaly. In the final predictive models, RECAP-GP (n=1863) included sex (male and female), age (years), degree of breathlessness (three point scale), temperature symptoms (two point scale), and presence of hypertension (yes or no); the area under the curve was 0·80 (95% CI 0·76-0·85) and on validation the negative predictive value of a low risk designation was 99% (95% CI 98·1-99·2; 1435 of 1453). RECAP-O2 included age (years), degree of breathlessness (two point scale), fatigue (two point scale), and SpO2 at rest (as a percentage); the area under the curve was 0·84 (0·78-0·90) and on validation the negative predictive value of low risk designation was 99% (95% CI 98·9-99·7; 1176 of 1183). INTERPRETATION: Both RECAP models are valid tools to assess COVID-19 patients in the community. RECAP-GP can be used initially, without need for observations, to identify patients who require monitoring. If the patient is monitored and SpO2 is available, RECAP-O2 is useful to assess the need for treatment escalation. FUNDING: Community Jameel and the Imperial College President's Excellence Fund, the Economic and Social Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, and Health Data Research UK.

Do people with multiple sclerosis want to know their prognosis? A UK nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) has a varied and uncertain trajectory. The recent development of analytical processing tools that draw on large longitudinal patient databases facilitates personalised long-term prognosis estimates. This has the potential to improve both shared treatment decision-making and psychological adjustment. However, there is limited research on how people with MS feel about prognosis communication and forecasting. This study investigated the prognosis communication experiences and preferences of people with MS and explored whether clinical, demographic and psychological factors are associated with prognosis information preferences. METHODS: 3175 UK MS Register members (59% of those with active accounts) completed an online survey containing 17 questions about prognosis communication experiences, attitudes and preferences. Participants also completed validated questionnaires measuring coping strategies, tendencies to seek out ('monitor') or avoid ('blunt') information in threatening situations, and MS risk perceptions and reported their clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. Data already held on the MS Register about participants' quality of life, anxiety and depression symptoms and MS impact were obtained and linked to the survey data. RESULTS: 53.1% of participants had never discussed long-term prognosis with healthcare professionals. 54.2% lacked clarity about their long-term prognosis. 76% had strong preferences for receiving long-term prognosis information. 92.8% were interested in using tools that generate personalised predictions. Most participants considered prognostication useful for decision-making. Participants were more receptive to receiving prognosis information at later time-points, versus at diagnosis. A comprehensive set of sociodemographic, clinical and psychological variables predicted only 7.9% variance in prognosis information preferences. CONCLUSIONS: People with MS have an appetite for individualised long-term prognosis forecasting and their need for information is frequently unmet. Clinical studies deploying and evaluating interventions to support prognostication in MS are now needed. This study indicates suitable contexts and patient preferences for initial trials of long-term prognosis tools in clinical settings.