Medical Student Exposure to Radiation Oncology Through the Pre-clerkship Residency Exploration Program (PREP): Effect on Career Interest and Understanding of Radiation Oncology.

Medical students receive little exposure to Radiation Oncology (RO) during pre-clinical training and clerkship. Pre-clerkship Residency Exploration Program (PREP) was developed by medical students at our institution to provide students with exposure to disciplines like RO with which they may not have had previous exposure, with the goal of helping with career decision making. The purpose of this study was to review how PREP affected self-reported interest in RO. PREP is a 2-week intensive elective developed by students at Dalhousie University that provides exposure to 12 specialties, including RO. PREP includes five components: half day clinical rotations, skills sessions, simulations, specialty-specific workshops, and lunchtime panel discussions. PREP participants completed questionnaires pre- and post-participation to assess career interest and understanding of Radiation Oncology. Forty participants took part in PREP. Thirty-six responded to pre-PREP questionnaires and 37 to the post-PREP questionnaire. Participants reported increasing interest in RO (24 students, 64.8%) and an increase in the understanding of the role and responsibilities of a radiation oncologist such that they felt comfortable making a career decision about RO. In pre-PREP, five (13.8%) participants listed RO as a top 3 career choice. Post-program, this number increased to nine (25.0%) of the same surveyed participants. PREP has demonstrated early exposure to RO can increase interest in RO as a career choice. Early clinical exposure experiences like we describe here may be useful for specialties such as RO, which is having difficulty filling residency positions in Canada despite an optimistic job forecast for trainees.

Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices have the potential to help maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but despite their increasing use, little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We aimed to study whether the introduction of LUCAS-2 mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: The pre-hospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) trial was a pragmatic, cluster-randomised open-label trial including adults with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from four UK Ambulance Services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales, South Central). 91 urban and semi-urban ambulance stations were selected for participation. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (1:2) to LUCAS-2 or manual CPR. Patients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene. The primary outcome was survival at 30 days following cardiac arrest and was analysed by intention to treat. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were masked to treatment allocation. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. The study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN08233942. FINDINGS: We enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 group, 2819 assigned to the control group) between April 15, 2010 and June 10, 2013. 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression, and 11 (<1%) patients in the control group received LUCAS-2. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30 day survival was similar in the LUCAS-2 group (104 [6%] of 1652 patients) and in the manual CPR group (193 [7%] of 2819 patients; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·64-1·15). No serious adverse events were noted. Seven clinical adverse events were reported in the LUCAS-2 group (three patients with chest bruising, two with chest lacerations, and two with blood in mouth). 15 device incidents occurred during operational use. No adverse or serious adverse events were reported in the manual group. INTERPRETATION: We noted no evidence of improvement in 30 day survival with LUCAS-2 compared with manual compressions. On the basis of ours and other recent randomised trials, widespread adoption of mechanical CPR devices for routine use does not improve survival. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research HTA - 07/37/69.

Mechanical devices for chest compression: to use or not to use?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The delivery of high-quality manual chest compressions is rarely achieved in practice. Mechanical chest compression devices can consistently deliver high-quality chest compressions. The recent publication of large prehospital trials of these devices provides important new information about the role of these devices. RECENT FINDINGS: The Circulation Improving Resuscitation Care (CIRC), LUCAS in cardiac arrest (LINC) and Prehospital Randomized Assessment of a Mechanical Compression Device (PARAMEDIC) trials have recently been published. All these large prehospital trials found that the routine use of mechanical compression devices in the prehospital setting did not improve survival rates compared to those observed with manual chest compressions. There remain limited data on the routine use of devices during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Observational studies report favourable outcomes with the use of mechanical devices in special circumstances, including as a bridge to advanced therapies such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. SUMMARY: Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) results in similar survival rates to manual CPR in out of hospital cardiac arrest. There are insufficient data to support or refute the routine use of mechanical CPR devices during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Observational studies demonstrate the feasibility of using mechanical CPR when manual CPR is difficult or impossible, and as a bridge to advanced therapies.

Prehospital recognition and antibiotics for 999 patients with sepsis: protocol for a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a common condition which kills between 36,000 and 64,000 people every year in the UK. Early recognition and management of sepsis has been shown to reduce mortality and improve the health and well-being of people with sepsis. Paramedics frequently come into contact with patients with sepsis and are well placed to provide early diagnosis and treatment.We aim to determine the feasibility of undertaking a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of paramedics obtaining blood cultures from and administering IV antibiotics to patients with sepsis, so we can make a decision about whether to proceed to a fully powered randomised controlled trial, which will answer questions regarding safety and effectiveness for patients and benefit to the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS/DESIGN: This is an individually randomised, two-arm feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 ratio. Sixty paramedics will receive training to assist them to recognise sepsis using a screening tool, obtain blood cultures, and provide IV antibiotics. If sepsis is suspected, paramedics will randomly allocate patients to intervention or usual care using their next sequential individually issued scratch card. Patients will be followed up at 90 days using linked anonymised data to capture length of hospital admission and mortality. We will also collect self-reported health-related quality of life (using SF-12) at this time. We will interview ten patients by telephone and hold a focus group with paramedics, to find out what they think about the intervention. DISCUSSION: At the end of this study, we will make a recommendation about whether a full randomised controlled trial of paramedics obtaining blood cultures and administering IV antibiotics for sepsis is warranted, and if so, we will develop a proposal for research funding in order to take the work forward. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN36856873.

Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices may help to maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We evaluated whether or not the introduction of Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assistance System-2 (LUCAS-2; Jolife AB, Lund, Sweden) mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the LUCAS-2 device as a routine ambulance service treatment for OHCA. DESIGN: Pragmatic, cluster randomised trial including adults with non-traumatic OHCA. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were blind to treatment allocation. Blinding of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. We also conducted a health economic evaluation and a systematic review of all trials of out-of-hospital mechanical chest compression. SETTING: Four UK ambulance services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales and South Central), comprising 91 urban and semiurban ambulance stations. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (approximately 1 : 2) to the LUCAS-2 device or manual CPR. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were included if they were in cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital environment. Exclusions were patients with cardiac arrest as a result of trauma, with known or clinically apparent pregnancy, or aged < 18 years. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survival at 30 days following cardiac arrest; survival without significant neurological impairment [Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of 1 or 2]. RESULTS: We enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 device and 2819 assigned to control) between 15 April 2010 and 10 June 2013. A total of 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression and 11 (< 1%) patients in the control group received LUCAS-2. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30-day survival was similar in the LUCAS-2 (104/1652, 6.3%) and manual CPR groups [193/2819, 6.8%; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.15]. Survival with a CPC score of 1 or 2 may have been worse in the LUCAS-2 group (adjusted OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99). No serious adverse events were noted. The systematic review found no evidence of a survival advantage if mechanical chest compression was used. The health economic analysis showed that LUCAS-2 was dominated by manual chest compression. LIMITATIONS: There was substantial non-compliance in the LUCAS-2 arm. For 272 out of 1652 patients (16.5%), mechanical chest compression was not used for reasons that would not occur in clinical practice. We addressed this issue by using complier average causal effect analyses. We attempted to measure CPR quality during the resuscitation attempts of trial participants, but were unable to do so. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of improvement in 30-day survival with LUCAS-2 compared with manual compressions. Our systematic review of recent randomised trials did not suggest that survival or survival without significant disability may be improved by the use of mechanical chest compression. FUTURE WORK: The use of mechanical chest compression for in-hospital cardiac arrest, and in specific circumstances (e.g. transport), has not yet been evaluated. TRIAI REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN08233942. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Pre-hospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug administration In Cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC-2): Trial protocol.

Despite its use since the 1960s, the safety or effectiveness of adrenaline as a treatment for cardiac arrest has never been comprehensively evaluated in a clinical trial. Although most studies have found that adrenaline increases the chance of return of spontaneous circulation for short periods, many studies found harmful effects on the brain and raise concern that adrenaline may reduce overall survival and/or good neurological outcome. The PARAMEDIC-2 trial seeks to determine if adrenaline is safe and effective in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This is a pragmatic, individually randomised, double blind, controlled trial with a parallel economic evaluation. Participants will be eligible if they are in cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital environment and advanced life support is initiated. Exclusions are cardiac arrest as a result of anaphylaxis or life threatening asthma, and patient known or appearing to be under 16 or pregnant. 8000 participants treated by 5 UK ambulance services will be randomised between December 2014 and August 2017 to adrenaline (intervention) or placebo (control) through opening pre-randomised drug packs. Clinical outcomes are survival to 30 days (primary outcome), hospital discharge, 3, 6 and 12 months, health related quality of life, and neurological and cognitive outcomes (secondary outcomes). Trial registration (ISRCTN73485024).

Does the use of dedicated dispatch criteria by Emergency Medical Services optimise appropriate allocation of advanced care resources in cases of high severity trauma? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The deployment of Enhanced Care Teams (ECTs) capable of delivering advanced clinical interventions for patients at the scene of incidents is commonplace by Emergency Medical Services in most developed countries. It is unclear whether primary dispatch models for ECT resources are more efficient at targeting deployment to patients with severe trauma than secondary dispatch, following requests from EMS personnel at scene. The objective of this study was to review the evidence for primary and secondary models in the targeted dispatch of ECT resources to patients with severe traumatic injury. METHODS: This review was completed in accordance with a protocol developed using the PRISMA guidelines. We conducted a search of the MEDLINE, EmBase, Web of Knowledge/Science databases and the Cochrane library, focussed on subject headings and keywords involving the dispatch of ECT resources by Emergency Medical Services. Design and results of each study were described. Heterogeneity in the design of the included studies precluded the completion of a meta-analysis. A narrative synthesis of the results therefore was performed. RESULTS: Five hundred and forty-eight articles were screened, and 16 were included. Only one study compared the performance of the different models of dispatch. A non-statistically significant reduction in the length of time for HEMS resources to reach incident scenes of 4min was found when primary dispatch protocols were utilised compared to requests from EMS personnel at scene. No effect on mortality; severity of injury or proportion of patients admitted to intensive care was observed. The remaining studies examined the processes utilised within current primary dispatch models but did not perform any comparative analysis with existing secondary dispatch models. CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies a lack of evidence supporting the role of primary dispatch models in targeting the deployment of Enhanced Care Teams to patients with severe injuries. It is therefore not possible to identify a model for ECT dispatch within pre-hospital systems that optimises resource utilisation. Further studies are required to assess the efficiency of systems utilised at each stage of the process used to dispatch Enhanced Care Team resources to incidents within regionalised pre-hospital trauma systems.