Transport Rates and Prehospital Intervals for an EMS Telemedicine Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency medical services (EMS) facilitated telemedicine encounters have been proposed as a strategy to reduce transports to hospitals for patients who access the 9-1-1 system. It is unclear which patient impressions are most likely able to be treated in place. It is also unknown if the increased time spent facilitating the telemedicine encounter is offset by the time saved from reducing the need for transport. The objective of this study was to determine the association between the impressions of EMS clinicians of the patients' primary problems and transport avoidance, and to describe the effects of telemedicine encounters on prehospital intervals. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of EMS records from two commercial EMS agencies in New York and Tennessee. For each EMS call where a telemedicine encounter occurred, a matched pair was identified. Clinicians' impressions were mapped to the corresponding category in the International Classification of Primary Care, 2nd edition (ICPC-2). Incidence and rates of transport avoidance for each category were determined. Prehospital interval was calculated as the difference between the time of ambulance dispatch and back-in-service time. RESULTS: Of the 463 prehospital telemedicine evaluations performed from March 2021 to April 2022, 312 (67%) avoided transports to the hospital. Respiratory calls were most likely to result in transport avoidance (p = 0.018); no other categories had statistically significant transport rates. Four hundred sixty-one (99.6%) had matched pairs identified and were included in the analysis. When compared to the matched pair, telemedicine without transport was associated with a prehospital interval reduction in 68% of the cases with a median reduction of 16 min; this is significantly higher than telemedicine with transport when compared to the matched pair with a median interval increase in 27 min. Regardless of transport status, the prehospital interval was a median of 4 min shorter for telemedicine encounters than non-telemedicine encounters (p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: In this study, most telemedicine evaluations resulted in ED transport avoidance, particularly for respiratory issues. Telemedicine interventions were associated with a median four-minute decrease in prehospital interval per call. Future research should investigate the long-term effects of telemedicine on patient outcomes.

Community Variations in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Care and Outcomes in Texas.

Background: Large and unacceptable variation exists in cardiac resuscitation care and outcomes across communities. Texas is the second most populous state in the US with wide variation in community and emergency response infrastructure. We utilized the Texas-CARES registry to perform the first Texas state analysis of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in Texas, evaluating for variations in incidence, care, and outcomes.Methods: We analyzed the Texas-CARES registry, including all adult, non-traumatic OHCAs from 1/1/2014 through 12/31/2018. We analyzed the incidence and characteristics of OHCA care and outcome, overall and stratified by community. Utilizing mixed models accounting for clustering by community, we characterized variations in bystander CPR, bystander AED in public locations, and survival to hospital discharge across communities, adjusting for age, gender, race, location of arrest, and rate of witnessed arrest (bystander and 911 responder witnessed).Results: There were a total of 26,847 (5,369 per year) OHCAs from 13 communities; median 2,762 per community (IQR 444-2,767, min 136, max 9161). Texas care and outcome characteristics were: bystander CPR (43.3%), bystander AED use (9.1%), survival to discharge (9.1%), and survival with good neurological outcomes (4.0%). Bystander CPR rate ranged from 19.2% to 55.0%, and there were five communities above and five below the adjusted 95% confidence interval. Bystander AED use ranged from 0% to 19.5%, and there was one community below the adjusted 95% confidence interval. Survival to hospital discharge ranged from 6.7% to 14.0%, and there were three communities above and two below the adjusted 95% confidence interval.Conclusion: While overall OHCA care and outcomes were similar in Texas compared to national averages, bystander CPR, bystander AED use, and survival varied widely across communities in Texas. These variations signal opportunities to improve OHCA care and outcomes in Texas.

Nerve stimulator-assisted sciatic nerve block for painful procedures in the ED.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency physicians must frequently perform painful procedures on an urgent basis. These are most commonly performed using procedural sedation techniques involving parenteral sedatives and/or analgesics. Popliteal block of the sciatic nerve is a proven and safe technique used extensively in anesthesiology practice for distal lower extremity analgesia. This technique offers the advantage of relative cardiopulmonary safety, dense and prolonged analgesia, and maintenance of normal airway reflexes in patients with increased aspiration risks. The objective of this study was to explore the usefulness of sciatic nerve block in the popliteal fossa in the emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all ED popliteal nerve block cases at our institution from April 2009 to April 2010. Sixteen cases were found where popliteal block was used for pain management during procedures of the leg, ankle, and foot, including fracture reduction, splinting, irrigation, and debridement. Procedural success was defined as successful completion of the technique without the need for additional procedural sedatives, patient satisfaction, and adequate postprocedural analgesia. RESULTS: A high degree of satisfaction was seen in our patient population, and all procedures were successfully completed. Tibial nerve rather than common peroneal nerve stimulation correlated with success of the block. Postprocedural analgesia was excellent in all cases and predictably lasted 90 to 120 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by small numbers and its retrospective nature, this review of popliteal nerve block for painful lower extremity procedures in the ED suggests that this technique may be an attractive alternative in selected cases to parenteral procedural sedation.