Impact of the first response unit on prehospital on-scene time among paramedic-suspected stroke patients: a retrospective before-after cohort study in Finland.

BACKGROUND: Revascularization of an occluded artery by either thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy is a time-critical intervention in ischaemic stroke. Each link in the stroke chain of survival should minimize the delay to definitive treatment in every possible way. In this study, we investigated the effect of routine dispatch of a first response unit (FRU) on prehospital on-scene time (OST) on stroke missions. METHODS: Medical dispatch of FRU together with an emergency medical service (EMS) ambulance was a routine strategy in the Tampere University Hospital area before 3 October 2018, after which the FRU has only been dispatched to medical emergencies on the decision of an EMS field commander. This study presents a retrospective before-after analysis of 2,228 paramedic-suspected strokes transported by EMSs to Tampere University Hospital. We collected data from EMS medical records from April 2016 to March 2021, and used statistical tests and binary logistic regression to detect the associations between the variables and the shorter and longer half of OSTs. RESULTS: The median OST of stroke missions was 19 min, IQR [14-25] min. The OST decreased when the routine use of the FRU was discontinued (19 [14-26] min vs. 18 [13-24] min, p < 0.001). The median OST with the FRU being the first at the scene (n = 256, 11%) was shorter than in cases where the FRU arrived after the ambulance (16 [12-22] min vs. 19 [15-25] min, p < 0.001). The OST with a stroke dispatch code was shorter than with non-stroke dispatches (18 [13-23] min vs. 22 [15-30] min, p < 0.001). The OST for thrombectomy candidates was shorter than that for thrombolysis candidates (18 [13-23] min vs. 19 [14-25], p = 0.01). The shorter half of OSTs were associated with the FRU arriving first at the scene, stroke dispatch code, thrombectomy transportation and urban location. CONCLUSION: The routine dispatch of the FRU to stroke missions did not decrease the OST unless the FRU was first to arrive at the scene. In addition, a correct stroke identification in the dispatch centre and thrombectomy candidate status decreased the OST.

Differences between the dispatch priority assessments of emergency medical dispatchers and emergency medical services: a prospective register-based study in Finland.

BACKGROUND: Responsive and efficient emergency medical services (EMS) require accurate telephone triage. In Finland, such services are provided by Emergency Response Centre Agency (ERC Agency). In 2018, a new Finnish computer-assisted emergency dispatch system was introduced: the Emergency Response Integrated Common Authorities (ERICA). After the introduction of ERICA, the appropriateness of EMS dispatch has not been investigated yet. The study´s objective is to determine the consistency between the priority triage of the emergency medical dispatcher (EMD) and the on-scene priority assessment of the EMS, and whether the priority assessment consistency varied among the dispatch categories. METHODS: This was a prospective register-based study. All EMS dispatches registered in the Tampere University Hospital area from 1 August 2021 to 31 August 2021 were analysed. The EMD's mission priority triaged during the emergency call was compared with the on-scene EMS's assessment of the priority, derived from the pre-set criteria. The test performance levels were measured from the crosstabulation of true or false positive and negative values of the priority assessment. Statistical significance was analysed using the chi-square test and the Kruskal-Wallis H test, and p-values < 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Of the 6416 EMS dispatches analysed in this study, 36% (2341) were urgent according to the EMD's dispatch priority, and of these, only 29% (688) were urgent according to the EMS criteria. On the other hand, 64% (4075) of the dispatches were non-urgent according to the EMD's dispatch priority, of which 97% (3949) were non-urgent according to the EMS criteria. Moreover, there were differences between the EMD and EMS priority assessments among the dispatch categories (p < 0.001). The overall efficiency was 72%, sensitivity 85%, specificity 71%, positive predictive value 29%, and negative predictive value 97%. CONCLUSION: While the EMD recognised the non-urgent dispatches with high consistency with the EMS criteria, most of the EMD's urgent dispatches were not urgent according to the same criteria. This may diminish the availability of the EMS for more urgent missions. Thus, measures are needed to ensure more accurate and therefore, more efficient use of EMS resources in the future.