Feasibility of the Transport PLUS intervention to improve the transitions of care for patients transported home by ambulance: a non-randomized pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The growing population of patients over the age of 65 faces particular vulnerability following discharge after hospitalization or an emergency room visit. Specific areas of concern include a high risk for falls and poor comprehension of discharge instructions. Emergency medical technicians (EMTs), who frequently transport these patients home from the hospital, are uniquely positioned to aid in mitigating transition of care risks and are both trained and utilized to do so using the Transport PLUS intervention. METHODS: Existing literature and focus groups of various stakeholders were utilized to develop two checklists: the fall safety assessment (FSA) and the discharge comprehension assessment (DCA). EMTs were trained to administer the intervention to eligible patients in the geriatric population. Using data from the checklists, follow-up phone calls, and electronic health records, we measured the presence of hazards, removal of hazards, the presence of discharge comprehension issues, and correction or reinforcement of comprehension. These results were validated during home visits by community health workers (CHWs). Feasibility outcomes included patient acceptance of the Transport PLUS intervention and accuracy of the EMT assessment. Qualitative feedback via focus groups was also obtained. Clinical outcomes measured included 3-day and 30-day readmission or ED revisit. RESULTS: One-hundred three EMTs were trained to administer the intervention and participated in 439 patient encounters. The intervention was determined to be feasible, and patients were highly amenable to the intervention, as evidenced by a 92% and 74% acceptance rate of the DCA and FSA, respectively. The majority of patients also reported that they found the intervention helpful (90%) and self-reported removing 40% of fall hazards; 85% of such changes were validated by CHWs. Readmission/revisit rates are also reported. CONCLUSIONS: The Transport PLUS intervention is a feasible, easily implemented tool in preventative community paramedicine with high levels of patient acceptance. Further study is merited to determine the effectiveness of the intervention in reducing rates of readmission or revisit. A randomized control trial has since begun utilizing the knowledge gained within this study.

When are prehospital intravenous catheters used for treatment?

Prior studies have found that > 50% of prehospital intravenous catheters (i.v.s) were unutilized for treatment; however, few data are available regarding which patients benefit. The objective of this study was to examine the association between i.v. utilization in the field, paramedic primary impression, and patient presentation. Prehospital records for 34,585 patients were evaluated for i.v. placement and utilization in the field. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of primary impression, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, Glasgow Coma Scale score, skin sign color, and capillary refill with placement and utilization. Intravenous catheters were placed in 60% of patients, but only 17% of the total was utilized. Examples of primary impressions with frequent initiation and low utilization (n = number in group, % of total with i.v. placed, % of total used): post-seizure (n = 989, 72%, 9%); weakness/dizzy/nausea (n = 3092, 69%, 20%), syncope/near-syncope (n = 2034, 81%, 26%), and abdominal pain (n = 1554, 70%, 14%). Fifty-eight percent with normal vital signs received an i.v. and 28-30% were utilized; hypotension: 80% received i.v. (odds ratio [OR] 1.211, p = 0.012), 70% utilized; hypertension: 61% received i.v. (OR 1.060, p = 0.027), 28% utilized; bradycardia: 82% received i.v. (OR 1.588, p < 0.0001), 51% utilized; tachycardia: 66% received i.v. (OR 1.152, p = 0.001), 33% utilized; bradypnea: 93% received i.v. (OR 1.638, p = 0.051), 86% utilized; tachypnea: 70% (OR 1.120, p = 0.024), 33% utilized. A Glasgow Coma Scale score < 15: 76% received i.v. (OR 1.672, p < 0.0001), 32% utilized. Abnormal skin color: 79% received i.v. (OR 1.691, p < 0.0001), 42% utilized. Certain primary impressions are associated with high i.v. initiation rates but infrequent utilization. High utilization rates were associated with hypotension, bradycardia, bradypnea, and abnormal skin signs. Study of high-frequency, low-utilization groups could reduce unnecessary i.v. placement.

Can emergency medical dispatch codes predict prehospital interventions for common 9-1-1 call types?

OBJECTIVE: The Medical Priority Dispatch System is an emergency medical dispatch (EMD) system that is widely used to categorize 9-1-1 calls and optimize resource allocation. This study evaluates the ability of EMD and non-EMD codes (calls not processed by EMD) to predict prehospital use of medications and procedures. METHODS: All transported prehospital patients placed in an EMD or non-EMD category that exceeded 500 total calls from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2006, in a suburban California county were matched with their prehospital electronic patient care record. These records (N = 69,541) were queried for the following prehospital interventions: basic life support (BLS) care only, intravenous line placement only, medication given, and procedures. Advanced life support (ALS) interventions were defined as the administration of a medications or a procedure. The numbers of medications and procedures that were performed on patients in each EMD code were measured. RESULTS: Thirty-one of 141 EMD and non-EMD codes met inclusion criteria and comprised 73% of all calls during the study period. Non-EMD codes accounted for 48% of all calls in this study. Patients with shortness of breath, chest pain, diabetic problems, and altered mental status received the most medications. High rates of medication administration were also seen in the following codes: 17A (fall, 27%), 17B (fall, 14%), EMDX (unable to complete EMD process, 22%), MED (medical aid requested--details to follow, 26%), and MED3 (medical aid requested by police--code 3, 18%). Procedures were performed on only 0.9% of all calls, of which 75% were related to advanced airways. Higher rates of ALS interventions in higher-acuity categories (Alpha, Bravo, etc.) were seen in a number of EMD categories, including seizure, laceration/hemorrhage, sick, and traffic accident, but not seen in many categories, including abdominal pain, falls, and chest pain. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated only a modest ability of the EMD system to predict which patients would require ALS intervention. There were limited differences noted in the ALS rates between the different codes (Alpha, Bravo, etc.) in the same complaint category, bringing into question the utility of the multiple subgroups. Non-EMD codes made up a large portion of calls (48%) and should be included in future studies.

Women are less likely than men to receive prehospital analgesia for isolated extremity injuries.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to examine the effect of socioeconomic factors, such as ethnicity, income, age, and sex, on the administration of analgesia for isolated extremity injuries in the prehospital setting. METHODS: For this retrospective study, the electronic medical record of a large ground-based emergency medical services agency was reviewed and all isolated extremity injuries occurring during the year 2005 were extracted. A total of 1009 cases met the inclusion criteria. Of these cases, 56 were excluded because of incomplete records, leaving 953 cases for analysis. Basic univariate analysis as well as logistic regression analysis were used to examine the relationship between analgesia administration and patient age, ethnicity, sex, income, subjective pain severity, and time under prehospital care. RESULTS: A total of 279 patients (29%) received morphine. Both univariate and logistic regression analysis revealed significant differences in analgesia administration based on sex (proportion of men receiving analgesia, 32.8%; women, 26.7%), initial pain severity, and time under prehospital care. Although no category of income was itself significant, a significant trend emerged in which increasing income was associated with increasing likelihood of receiving analgesia. There was no significant difference in analgesia based on patient age or ethnicity. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that women are less likely than men to receive prehospital analgesia for isolated extremity injuries. Patients with higher pain severity and longer duration of prehospital care are more likely to receive prehospital analgesia. Increasing levels of income were associated with increased rates of analgesia. The overall rate of prehospital analgesia administration for isolated extremity injuries in this population is higher than has been reported for other emergency medical services systems (29% vs 2%-18% in other recent studies), but there remains considerable room for improvement in the provision of prehospital analgesia. Further inquiry is needed to determine why certain populations such as women receive disproportionately less analgesia.

The ability of emergency medical dispatch codes of medical complaints to predict ALS prehospital interventions.

OBJECTIVE: The Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS) is an emergency medical dispatch (EMD) system that is commonly used to triage 9-1-1 calls and optimize paramedic and EMT dispatch. The objective of this study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of selected MPDS dispatch codes to predict the need for ALS medication or procedures. METHODS: Patients with selected MPDS codes between November 1, 2003, and October 31, 2005, from a suburban California county were matched with their electronic patient care record. The records of all transported patients were queried for prehospital interventions and matched to their MPDS classification [Basic Life Support (BLS) versus Advanced Life Support (ALS)]. Patients who received prehospital interventions or medications were considered ALS Intervention. With true positive = ALS by MPDS + ALS Intervention, true negative = BLS by MPDS + BLS Interventions, false positive = ALS by MPDS + BLS Interventions, and false negative = BLS by MPDS + ALS Interventions, the screening performance of the San Mateo County EMD system was determined for selected complaint categories (abdominal pain, breathing problems chest pain, sick person, seizures, and unconscious/fainting). RESULTS: There were a total of 64,647 medical calls, and 42,651 went through the EMD process; 31,187 went through the EMD process and were transported; 22,243 of these were matched to a patient care record. The sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals in () were as follows: all EMD calls 84 (83-85), 36 (35-36); abdominal pain, 53 (41-65), 47 (43-51); chest pain 99 (99-100), 2 (1-3); seizure 83 (77-88), 20 (17-23), sick 59 (53-64), 51 (49-54), and unconscious/fainting 99 (98-100), 2 (2-3). CONCLUSION: In our EMS system, MPDS coding for all medical calls had high sensitivity and low specificity for the prediction of calls that required ALS intervention. Chest pain and unconscious/fainting calls were screened with very high sensitivity but very low specificity.