Emergency physicians' and nurses' perception on the adequacy of emergency calls for nursing home residents: a non-interventional prospective study.

Introduction: A considerable percentage of daily emergency calls are for nursing home residents. With the ageing of the overall European population, an increase in emergency calls and interventions in nursing homes (NH) is to be expected. A proportion of these interventions and hospital transfers may be preventable and could be considered as inappropriate by prehospital emergency medical personnel. The study aimed to understand Belgian emergency physicians' and emergency nurses' perspectives on emergency calls and interventions in NHs and investigate factors contributing to their perception of inappropriateness. Methods: An exploratory non-interventional prospective study was conducted in Belgium among emergency physicians and emergency nurses, currently working in prehospital emergency medicine. Electronic questionnaires were sent out in September, October and November 2023. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the overall results, as well as to compare the answers between emergency physicians and emergency nurses about certain topics. Results: A total of 114 emergency physicians and 78 nurses responded to the survey. The mean age was 38 years with a mean working experience of 10 years in prehospital healthcare. Nursing home staff were perceived as understaffed and lacking in competence, with an impact on patient care especially during nights and weekends. General practitioners were perceived as insufficiently involved in the patient's care, as well as often unavailable in times of need, leading to activation of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and transfers of nursing home residents to the Emergency Department (ED). Advance directives were almost never available at EMS interventions and transfers were often not in accordance with the patient's wishes. Palliative care and pain treatment were perceived as insufficient. Emergency physicians and nurses felt mostly disappointed and frustrated. Additionally, differences in perception were noted between emergency physicians and nurses regarding certain topics. Emergency nurses were more convinced that the nursing home physician should be available 24/7 and that transfers could be avoided if nursing home staff had more authority regarding medical interventions. Emergency nurses were also more under the impression that pain management was inadequate, and emergency physicians were more afraid of the medical implications of doing too little during interventions than emergency nurses. Suggestions to reduce the number of EMS interventions were more general practitioner involvement (82%), better nursing home staff education/competences (77%), more nursing home staff (67%), mobile palliative care support teams (65%) and mobile geriatric nursing intervention teams (52%). Discussion and conclusion: EMS interventions in nursing homes were almost never seen as necessary or indicated by emergency physicians and nurses, with the appropriate EMS level almost never being activated. The following key issues were found: shortages in numbers and competence of nursing home staff, insufficient primary care due to the unavailability of the general practitioner as well as a lack of involvement in patient care, and an absence of readily available advance directives. General practitioners should be more involved in the decision to call the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and to transfer nursing home residents to the Emergency Department. Healthcare workers should strive for vigilance regarding the patients' wishes. The emotional burden of deciding on an avoidable hospital admission of nursing home residents, perhaps out of fear for medico-legal consequences if doing too little, leaves the emergency physicians and nurses frustrated and disappointed. Improvements in nursing home staffing, more acute and chronic general practitioner consultations, and mobile geriatric and palliative care support teams are potential solutions. Further research should focus on the structural improvement of the above-mentioned shortcomings.

Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the next decade: Predicting and shaping the impact of technological innovations.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac arrest (CA) is the third leading cause of death, with persistently low survival rates despite medical advancements. This article evaluates the potential of emerging technologies to enhance CA management over the next decade, using predictions from the AI tools ChatGPT-4 and Gemini Advanced. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory literature review to envision the future of cardiopulmonary arrest (CA) management. Utilizing ChatGPT-4 and Gemini Advanced, we predicted implementation timelines for innovations in early recognition, CPR, defibrillation, and post-resuscitation care. We also consulted the AI to assess the consistency and reproducibility of the predictions. RESULTS: We extrapolate that healthcare may embrace new technologies, such as comprehensive monitoring of vital signs to activate the emergency system (wireless detectors, smart speakers, and wearable devices), use new innovative early CPR and early AED devices (robot CPR, wearable AEDs, and immersive reality), and post-resuscitation care monitoring (brain-computer interface). These technologies could enhance timely life-saving interventions for cardiac arrest. However, there are many ethical and practical challenges, particularly in maintaining patient privacy and equity. The two AI tools made different predictions, with a horizon for implementation ranging between three and eight years. CONCLUSION: Integrating advanced monitoring technologies and AI-driven tools offers hope in improving CA management. A balanced approach involving rigorous scientific validation and ethical oversight is necessary. Collaboration among technologists, medical professionals, ethicists, and policymakers is crucial to use these innovations ethically to reduce CA incidence and enhance outcomes. Further research is needed to enhance the reliability of AI predictive capabilities.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in low-resource settings: a statement by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, supported by the AFEM, EUSEM, IFEM, and IFRC.

Most recommendations on cardiopulmonary resuscitation were developed from the perspective of high-resource settings with the aim of applying them in these settings. These so-called international guidelines are often not applicable in low-resource settings. Organisations including the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) have not sufficiently addressed this problem. We formed a collaborative group of experts from various settings including low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries, and conducted a prospective, multiphase consensus process to formulate this ILCOR Task Force statement. We highlight the discrepancy between current cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines and their applicability in low-resource settings. Successful existing initiatives such as the Helping Babies Breathe programme and the WHO Emergency Care Systems Framework are acknowledged. The concept of the chainmail of survival as an adaptive approach towards a framework of resuscitation, the potential enablers of and barriers to this framework, and gaps in the knowledge are discussed, focusing on low-resource settings. Action points are proposed, which might be expanded into future recommendations and suggestions, addressing a large diversity of addressees from caregivers to stakeholders. This statement serves as a stepping-stone to developing a truly global approach to guide resuscitation care and science, including in health-care systems worldwide.

Cost effects of nurse led triage at an emergency department with the advice to consult the adjacent general practice cooperative for low-risk patients, a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: During the TRIAGE trial, emergency nurses diverted 13.3% of patients with low-risk complaints from a Belgian emergency department (ED) to the adjacent general practitioner cooperative (GPC). We examined the effects of this diversion on the total cost, insurance costs and patient costs, as charged on the invoice. Changes in the cost composition and the direct impact on revenues of both locations were examined as a secondary objective. METHODS: The differences in costs between intervention and control weekends were tested with two-sample t-tests and Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests. For the main outcomes an additional generalised linear model was created. Proportions of patients charged with certain costs were examined using Pearson's chi-square tests. Average revenues per weekend were compared using pooled t-tests. RESULTS: During intervention weekends, total costs increased by 3% (€3.3). The costs decreased by 8% (€2.2) for patients and increased by 6% (€5.5) for insurance, mainly driven by differences in physician fees. More patients were charged a consultation fee only (25% vs. 19%, p-value<0.01). The GPC's revenues increased by 13% (p-value=0.06); no change was found for the ED's revenues. CONCLUSION: The intervention reduced costs slightly for patients, while total costs and insurance costs slightly increased. When implementing triage systems with primary care involvement, the effects on the costs and revenues of the stakeholders should be monitored.

Triaging and referring in adjacent general and emergency departments (the TRIAGE-trial): A process evaluation of medical staff experiences in a nurse-led triage system.

AIMS: This process evaluation aims at identifying the facilitators and inhibitors that influenced the successful uptake of a nurse-led triage system streaming low-risk patients from an emergency department (ED) to the general practitioner (GP). DESIGN & METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with ED nurses (n = 12), ED doctors (n = 6) from the ED of a Belgian general hospital and GPs (n = 5) affiliated with the adjacent GP cooperative (GPC). The process evaluation ran in parallel with the TRIAGE trial that started in March 2019 and ended 31st of December 2019. The first set of interviews was conducted in June 2019 and the second set in January 2020. Data were analysed based on grounded theory. RESULTS: Through a deductive framework, facilitators and inhibitors could be identified on three levels: the organisational, group and individual level. Main inhibitors are the degree of risk aversion of individual nurses, possible language barriers during delivery of the triage advice and the non-adapted ED infrastructure. Training on both the use of the triage protocol and effective delivery of the triage advice, in combination with periodical feedback from the GPC were the most important facilitators. CONCLUSION: Based on the process evaluation we can conclude that a consensus exists among stakeholders that the ED Nurses are considered ideally positioned to perform the triage of walk-in patients, although a certain degree of experience is necessary. Although the extended triage protocol and GPC referral increases the complexity and duration of triage and entails a higher workload for the triage nurses, ED nurses found it did lead to a lower (perceived) workload for the ED in general.

Non-compliance with a nurse's advice to visit the primary care provider: an exploratory secondary analysis of the TRIAGE-trial.

BACKGROUND: During the cluster randomised TRIAGE-trial, a nurse advised 13% of low-risk patients presenting at an emergency department in Belgium to visit the adjacent general practitioner cooperative. Patients had the right to refuse this advice. This exploratory study examines the characteristics of refusers by uncovering the determinants of non-compliance and its impact on costs, as charged on the patient's invoice. METHODS: Bivariate analyses with logistic regressions and T-tests were used to test the differences in patient characteristics, patient status, timing characteristics, and costs between refusers and non-refusers. A chi-square automatic interaction detection analysis was used to find the predictors of non-compliance. RESULTS: 23.50% of the patients refused the advice to visit the general practitioner cooperative. This proportion was mainly influenced by the nurse on duty (non-compliance rates per nurse ranging from 2.9% to 52.8%) and the patients' socio-economic status (receiving increased reimbursement versus not OR 1.37, 95%CI: 0.96 to 1.95). Additionally, non-compliance was associated (at the 0.10 significance level) with being male, not living nearby and certain reasons for encounter. Fewer patients refused when the nurse perceived crowding level as quiet relative to normal, and more patients refused during the evening. The mean cost was significantly higher for patients who refused, which was a result of more extensive examination and higher out-of-pocket expenses at the ED. CONCLUSIONS: The nurse providing the advice to visit the general practitioner cooperative has a central role in the likelihood of patients' refusal. Interventions to reduce non-compliance should aim at improving nurse-patient communication. Special attention may be required when managing patients with a lower socio-economic status. The overall mean cost was higher for refusers, illustrating the importance of compliance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on registration number NCT03793972 on 04/01/2019.

Sufficient personal protective equipment training can reduce COVID-19 related symptoms in healthcare workers: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The association between inadequate personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic and an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline healthcare workers has been proven. However, frontline healthcare workers with an adequate supply of personal protective equipment still showed an increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Research on the use of personal protective equipment could provide insight into handling present and future pandemics. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the impact of the availability, training and correct selection of personal protective equipment on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or positive suspect cases in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study involving Belgian healthcare workers: nurses, nursing aides, and midwives working in hospitals, home care services, and residential care services. METHODS: Respondents were invited from May to July 2020 (period 1) followed by a second time in October 2020 (period 2) to complete a digital survey on personal protective equipment availability, training, personal protective equipment selection, screening ability, COVID-19 testing and status, and symptoms corresponding with the COVID-19 suspect case definition. The main outcome was a composite of COVID-19 status change (from negative to positive) during the study or a positive suspect case definition in period 2. RESULTS: Full data were available for 617 participants. The majority of respondents were nurses (93%) employed in a hospital (83%). In total, 379 respondents provided frontline care for COVID-19 patients (61%) and were questioned on personal protective equipment availability and personal protective equipment selection. Nurses were more likely to select the correct personal protective equipment compared with nursing aides and midwives. Respondents working in residential care settings were least likely to choose personal protective equipment correctly. Of all healthcare workers, 10% tested positive for COVID-19 during the course of the study and a composite outcome was reached in 54% of all respondents. Working experience and sufficient personal protective equipment training showed an inverse relation with the composite outcome. The relationship between personal protective equipment availability and the composite outcome was fully mediated by personal protective equipment training (-0.105 [95% confidence interval -0.211 - -0.020]). CONCLUSIONS: Proper training in personal protective equipment usage is critical to reduce the risk of COVID infection in healthcare workers. During a pandemic, rapid dissemination of video guidelines could improve personal protective equipment knowledge in practitioners. Tweetable abstract: Proper training in personal protective equipment usage is critical to reduce the risk of COVID infection in healthcare workers.

Triaging and referring in adjacent general and emergency departments (the TRIAGE trial): A cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a new triage system safely diverts a proportion of emergency department (ED) patients to a general practitioner cooperative (GPC). METHODS: Unblinded randomised controlled trial with weekends serving as clusters (three intervention clusters for each control). The intervention was triage by a nurse using a new extension to the Manchester Triage System assigning low-risk patients to the GPC. During intervention weekends, patients were encouraged to follow this assignment; it was not communicated during control weekends (all patients remained at the ED). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients assigned to and handled by the GPC during intervention weekends. The trial was randomised for the secondary outcome: the proportion of patients assigned to the GPC. Additional outcomes were association of these outcomes with possible confounders (study tool parameters, nurse, and patient characteristics), proportion of patients referred back to the ED by the GPC, hospitalisations, and performance of the study tool to detect primary care patients (the opinion of the treating physician was the gold standard). RESULTS: In the intervention group, 838/6294 patients (13.3%, 95% CI 12.5 to 14.2) were assigned to the GPC, in the control group this was 431/1744 (24.7%, 95% CI 22.7 to 26.8). In total, 599/6294 patients (9.5%, 95% CI 8.8 to 10.3) experienced the primary outcome which was influenced by the reason for encounter, age, and the nurse. 24/599 patients (4.0%, 95% CI 2.7 to 5.9) were referred back to the ED, three were hospitalised. Positive and negative predictive values of the studied tool during intervention weekends were 0.96 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.97) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.62). Out of the patients assigned to the GPC, 2.4% (95% CI 1.7 to 3.4) were hospitalised. CONCLUSIONS: ED nurses using a new tool safely diverted 9.5% of the included patients to primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03793972.

[Education for resuscitation]. / Lehre in der Reanimation: Leitlinien des European Resuscitation Council 2021.

These European Resuscitation Council education guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidance to citizens and healthcare professionals with regard to teaching and learning the knowledge, skills and attitudes of resuscitation with the ultimate aim of improving patient survival after cardiac arrest.

[Basic life support]. / Basismaßnahmen zur Wiederbelebung Erwachsener (Basic Life Support): Leitlinien des European Resuscitation Council 2021.

The European Resuscitation Council has produced these basic life support guidelines, which are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. The topics covered include cardiac arrest recognition, alerting emergency services, chest compressions, rescue breaths, automated external defibrillation (AED), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality measurement, new technologies, safety, and foreign body airway obstruction.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Education for resuscitation.

These European Resuscitation Council education guidelines, are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidance to citizens and healthcare professionals with regard to teaching and learning the knowledge, skills and attitudes of resuscitation with the ultimate aim of improving patient survival after cardiac arrest.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Basic Life Support.

The European Resuscitation Council has produced these basic life support guidelines, which are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. The topics covered include cardiac arrest recognition, alerting emergency services, chest compressions, rescue breaths, automated external defibrillation (AED), CPR quality measurement, new technologies, safety, and foreign body airway obstruction.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Systems saving lives.

The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) has produced these Systems Saving Lives guidelines, which are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. The topics covered include chain of survival, measuring performance of resuscitation, social media and smartphones apps for engaging community, European Restart a Heart Day, World Restart a Heart, KIDS SAVE LIVES campaign, lower-resource setting, European Resuscitation Academy and Global Resuscitation Alliance, early warning scores, rapid response systems, and medical emergency team, cardiac arrest centres and role of dispatcher.