Achieving Equity in EMS Care and Patient Outcomes Through Quality Management Systems: A Position Statement.

Improving health and safety in our communities requires deliberate focus and commitment to equity. Inequities are differences in access, treatment, and outcomes between individuals and across populations that are systemic, avoidable, and unjust. Within health care in general, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in particular, there are demonstrated inequities in the quality of care provided to patients based on a number of characteristics linked to discrimination, exclusion, or bias. Given the critical role that EMS plays within the health care system, it is imperative that EMS systems reduce inequities by delivering evidence-based, high-quality care for the communities and patients we serve. To achieve equity in EMS care delivery and patient outcomes, the National Association of EMS Physicians recommends that EMS systems and agencies: make health equity a strategic priority and commit to improving equity at all levels.assess and monitor clinical and safety quality measures through the lens of inequities as an integrated part of the quality management process.ensure that data elements are structured to enable equity analysis at every level and routinely evaluate data for limitations hindering equity analysis and improvement.involve patients and community stakeholders in determining data ownership and stewardship to ensure its ongoing evolution and fitness for use for measuring care inequities.address biases as they translate into the quality of care and standards of respect for patients.pursue equity through a framework rooted in the principles of improvement science.

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.

Evidence-Based Guidelines for Prehospital Pain Management: Recommendations.

This project sought to develop evidence-based guidelines for the administration of analgesics for moderate to severe pain by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) clinicians based on a separate, previously published, systematic review of the comparative effectiveness of analgesics in the prehospital setting prepared by the University of Connecticut Evidence-Based Practice Center for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). A technical expert panel (TEP) was assembled consisting of subject matter experts in prehospital and emergency care, and the development of evidence-based guidelines and patient care guidelines. A series of nine "patient/population-intervention-comparison-outcome" (PICO) questions were developed based on the Key Questions identified in the AHRQ systematic review, and an additional PICO question was developed to specifically address analgesia in pediatric patients. The panel made a strong recommendation for the use of intranasal fentanyl over intravenous (IV) opioids for pediatric patients without intravenous access given the supporting evidence, its effectiveness, ease of administration, and acceptance by patients and providers. The panel made a conditional recommendation for the use of IV non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) over IV acetaminophen (APAP). The panel made conditional recommendations for the use of either IV ketamine or IV opioids; for either IV NSAIDs or IV opioids; for either IV fentanyl or IV morphine; and for either IV ketamine or IV NSAIDs. A conditional recommendation was made for IV APAP over IV opioids. The panel made a conditional recommendation against the use of weight-based IV ketamine in combination with weight-based IV opioids versus weight-based IV opioids alone. The panel considered the use of oral analgesics and a conditional recommendation was made for either oral APAP or oral NSAIDs when the oral route of administration was preferred. Given the lack of a supporting evidence base, the panel was unable to make recommendations for the use of nitrous oxide versus IV opioids, or for IV ketamine in combination with IV opioids versus IV ketamine alone. Taken together, the recommendations emphasize that EMS medical directors and EMS clinicians have a variety of effective options for the management of moderate to severe pain in addition to opioids when designing patient care guidelines and caring for patients suffering from acute pain.

Quality Management of Prehospital Airway Programs: An NAEMSP Position Statement and Resource Document.

Prehospital airway management encompasses a multitude of complex decision-making processes, techniques, and interventions. Quality management (encompassing quality assurance and quality improvement activities) in EMS is dynamic, evidence-based, and most of all, patient-centric. Long a mainstay of the EMS clinician skillset, airway management deserves specific focus and attention and dedicated quality management processes to ensure the delivery of high-quality clinical care.It is the position of NAEMSP that:All EMS agencies should dedicate sufficient resources to patient-centric, comprehensive prehospital airway quality management program. These quality management programs should consist of prospective, concurrent, and retrospective activities. Quality management programs should be developed and operated with the close involvement of the medical director.Quality improvement and quality assurance efforts should operate in an educational, non-disciplinary, non-punitive, evidence-based medicine culture focused on patient safety. The highest quality of care is only achieved when the quality management program rewards those who identify and seek to prevent errors before they occur.Information evaluated in prehospital airway quality management programs should include both subjective and objective data elements with uniform reporting and operational definitions.EMS systems should regularly measure and report process, outcome, and balancing airway management measures.Quality management activities require large-scale bidirectional information sharing between EMS agencies and receiving facilities. Hospital outcome information should be shared with agencies and the involved EMS clinicians.Findings from quality management programs should be used to guide and develop initial education and continued training.Quality improvement programs must continually undergo evaluation and assessment to identify strengths and shortcomings with a focus on continuous improvement.