Medical emergencies at sea: an analysis of ambulance-supported and autonomously performed operations by lifeboat crews.

BACKGROUND: Very little data is available about the involvement of lifeboat crews in medical emergencies at sea. The aim of this study is to analyze the medical operations at sea performed by the Royal Netherlands Sea Rescue Institution (KNRM). METHODS: This is a retrospective descriptive analysis of all medical operations at sea performed by the KNRM between January 2017 and January 2020. The operations were divided in three groups: with ambulance crew aboard the lifeboat, ambulance crew on land waiting for the arrival of the lifeboat, and autonomous operations (without ambulance crew involvement). The main outcome measures were circumstances, encountered medical problems, follow-up and crew departure time. RESULTS: The KNRM performed 282 medical operations, involving 361 persons. Operations with ambulance crew aboard the lifeboat (n = 39; 42 persons) consisted mainly of persons with serious trauma or injuries; 32 persons (76.2%) were transported to a hospital. Operations with ambulance crew on land (n = 153; 188 persons) mainly consisted of situations where time was essential, such as persons who were still in the water, with risk of drowning (n = 45, 23.9%), on-going resuscitations (n = 9, 4.8%) or suicide attempts (n = 7, 3.7%). 101 persons (53,7%) were transported to a hospital. All persons involved in the autonomous operations (n = 90; 131 persons) had minor injuries. 38 persons (29%) needed additional medical care, mainly for (suspected) fractures or stitches. In 115 (40.8%) of all operations lifeboat crews did not know that there was a medical problem at the time of departure. Crew departure time in operations with ambulance crew aboard the lifeboat (13.7 min, min. 0, max. 25, SD 5.74 min.) was significantly longer than in operations with ambulance crew on land (7.7 min, min. 0, max 21, SD 4.82 min., p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study provides new information about the large variety of medical emergencies at sea and the way that lifeboat and ambulance crews are involved. Crew departure time in operations with ambulance crew aboard the lifeboat was significantly longer than in operations with ambulance crew on land. This study may provide useful indications for improvement of future medical operations at sea, such as triage, because in 40.8% of operations, it was not known at the time of departure that there was a medical problem.

Performance of illness severity scores to guide disposition of emergency department patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the number of emergency department (ED) patients with severe sepsis who are admitted to the ICU and to assess whether the predisposition, infection, response and organ failure (PIRO) score can be used as a clinical decision-making tool for guiding the disposition of ED sepsis patients to wards or the ICU. METHODS: This is a prospective study including ED patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. The PIRO score and in-hospital mortality were assessed in patients admitted to wards and ICUs. The sensitivity and specificity of the PIRO score and clinical judgement of the ED physician for guiding adequate disposition to wards or the ICU were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 47 of 153 patients were admitted to the ICU. Thirty-nine of 106 ward admissions had a 'do not resuscitate' status (not included in analysis). Mortality was 1.5 and 21% in patients initially admitted to a ward and the ICU, respectively. Unanticipated transfer from the ward to the ICU occurred in eight of 67 patients, resulting in higher mortality (38%, P=0.002, false negatives). Nine surviving patients admitted to the ICU for mere observation for less than 1 day were defined as false positives. Sensitivity of clinical judgement and of PIRO score (cut-off 9.5) alone or combined with clinical judgement were 0.92, 0.75 and 0.98, respectively (P<0.001). For specificity, these were 0.71, 0.56 and 0.40, respectively (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of ED patients with severe sepsis were admitted to the ward, of whom ∼13% clinically deteriorated, resulting in ICU admission and higher mortality. The PIRO score adds little value over clinical judgement in guiding adequate disposition to wards or the ICU.

Different characteristics of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease on their path through healthcare: a population follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Only a minority of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms (GORS) seek medical advice. Little is known about patient characteristics associated with consultation in primary care and referral to secondary care. AIMS AND METHODS: We compared the characteristics of patients with GORS in the general population, those who consulted their general practitioner (GP) and those referred to secondary care for upper endoscopy. We aimed to identify differences between patients with short term (<90 days) and chronic symptoms, and differences between patients with symptoms in primary and secondary care. The study was performed in a primary care based prospective dynamic population. RESULTS: In total, 16% of 7237 adult patients were identified with GORS. Twenty-five percent of these patients consulted the GP, of whom 40% were referred for endoscopy. Patients with chronic GORS were older, had a higher body mass index, were more often referred for upper endoscopy (all P<0.001) and more frequently had relevant findings during endoscopy (oesophagitis: 50% and Barrett's oesophagus: 10%). Patients referred for upper endoscopy were older than nonreferred patients (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Only a minority of people with GORS visit their GP. After consulting referral for endoscopy occurs relatively often. Underlying endoscopic abnormalities are frequently found in patients with chronic GORS.