Experiences and views of people who frequently call emergency ambulance services: A qualitative study of UK service users.

INTRODUCTION: People who call emergency ambulances frequently are often vulnerable because of health and social circumstances, have unresolved problems or cannot access appropriate care. They have higher mortality rates. Case management by interdisciplinary teams can help reduce demand for emergency services and is available in some UK regions. We report results of interviews with people who use emergency ambulance services frequently to understand their experiences of calling and receiving treatment. METHODS: We used a two-stage recruitment process. A UK ambulance service identified six people who were known to them as frequently calling emergency services. Through third-sector organisations, we also recruited nine individuals with healthcare experiences reflecting the characteristics of people who call frequently. We gained informed consent to record and transcribe all telephone interviews. We used thematic analysis to explore the results. RESULTS: People said they make frequent calls to emergency ambulance services as a last resort when they perceive their care needs are urgent and other routes to help have failed. Those with the most complex health needs generally felt their immediate requirements were not resolved and underlying mental and physical problems led them to call again. A third of respondents were also attended to by police and were arrested for behaviour associated with their health needs. Those callers receiving case management did not know they were selected for this. Some respondents were concerned that case management could label frequent callers as troublemakers. CONCLUSION: People who make frequent calls to emergency ambulance services feel their health and care needs are urgent and ongoing. They cannot see alternative ways to receive help and resolve problems. Communication between health professionals and service users appears inadequate. More research is needed to understand service users' motivations and requirements to inform design and delivery of accessible and effective services. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with relevant experience were involved in developing, undertaking and disseminating this research. Two public contributors helped design and deliver the study, including developing and analysing service user interviews and drafting this paper. Eight public members of a Lived Experience Advisory Panel contributed at key stages of study design, interpretation and dissemination. Two more public contributors were members of an independent Study Steering Committee.

A Randomized Trial of Epinephrine in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Concern about the use of epinephrine as a treatment for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation to call for a placebo-controlled trial to determine whether the use of epinephrine is safe and effective in such patients. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial involving 8014 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United Kingdom, paramedics at five National Health Service ambulance services administered either parenteral epinephrine (4015 patients) or saline placebo (3999 patients), along with standard care. The primary outcome was the rate of survival at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included the rate of survival until hospital discharge with a favorable neurologic outcome, as indicated by a score of 3 or less on the modified Rankin scale (which ranges from 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]). RESULTS: At 30 days, 130 patients (3.2%) in the epinephrine group and 94 (2.4%) in the placebo group were alive (unadjusted odds ratio for survival, 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 to 1.82; P=0.02). There was no evidence of a significant difference in the proportion of patients who survived until hospital discharge with a favorable neurologic outcome (87 of 4007 patients [2.2%] vs. 74 of 3994 patients [1.9%]; unadjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.61). At the time of hospital discharge, severe neurologic impairment (a score of 4 or 5 on the modified Rankin scale) had occurred in more of the survivors in the epinephrine group than in the placebo group (39 of 126 patients [31.0%] vs. 16 of 90 patients [17.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the use of epinephrine resulted in a significantly higher rate of 30-day survival than the use of placebo, but there was no significant between-group difference in the rate of a favorable neurologic outcome because more survivors had severe neurologic impairment in the epinephrine group. (Funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN73485024 .).

Cost-effectiveness of adrenaline for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: The 'Prehospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Administration In Cardiac Arrest' (PARAMEDIC2) trial showed that adrenaline improves overall survival, but not neurological outcomes. We sought to determine the within-trial and lifetime health and social care costs and benefits associated with adrenaline, including secondary benefits from organ donation. METHODS: We estimated the costs, benefits (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) associated with adrenaline during the 6-month trial follow-up. Model-based analyses explored how results altered when the time horizon was extended beyond 6 months and the scope extended to include recipients of donated organs. RESULTS: The within-trial (6 months) and lifetime horizon economic evaluations focussed on the trial population produced ICERs of £1,693,003 (€1,946,953) and £81,070 (€93,231) per QALY gained in 2017 prices, respectively, reflecting significantly higher mean costs and only marginally higher mean QALYs in the adrenaline group. The probability that adrenaline is cost-effective was less than 1% across a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds. Combined direct economic effects over the lifetimes of survivors and indirect economic effects in organ recipients produced an ICER of £16,086 (€18,499) per QALY gained for adrenaline with the probability that adrenaline is cost-effective increasing to 90% at a £30,000 (€34,500) per QALY cost-effectiveness threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Adrenaline was not cost-effective when only directly related costs and consequences are considered. However, incorporating the indirect economic effects associated with transplanted organs substantially alters cost-effectiveness, suggesting decision-makers should consider the complexity of direct and indirect economic impacts of adrenaline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN73485024 . Registered on 13 March 2014.

Patient safety incidents and medication errors during a clinical trial: experience from a pre-hospital randomized controlled trial of emergency medication administration.

AIM: To assess and evaluate patient safety incidents and in particular, medication errors, during a large multi-center pre-hospital trial of emergency therapy (PARAMEDIC2), in order to inform and improve future pre-hospital medicines trials. METHODS: The PARAMEDIC2 trial was undertaken across five NHS Ambulance Services in England and Wales with randomisation between December 2014 and October 2017. Patients with an out -of-hospital cardiac arrest unresponsive to initial resuscitation were randomly assigned to 1 mg intravenous adrenaline or matching placebo. Records were reviewed to identify trial medication errors involving documentation and/or clinical protocol errors occurring in trial participants. Causes of medication errors, including root cause analysis where available, were reviewed to identify patterns and themes contributing to these errors. RESULTS: Eight thousand sixteen patients were enrolled, of whom 4902 received trial medication. A total of 331 patient safety incidents was reported, involving 295 patients, representing an overall rate of 3.6% of these, 166 (50.2%) were documentation errors while 165 (49.8%) were clinical protocol/medication errors. An overall rate of 0-4.5% was reported across all five ambulance services, with a mean of 2.0%. These errors had no impact on patient care or the trial and were all resolved CONCLUSION: The overall medication error rate of 1.8% primarily consisted of administration of open-label adrenaline and confusion with trial medication packs. A similar number of patients had documentation errors. This study is the first to provide data on patient safety incidents relating to medication errors encountered during a pre-hospital trial of emergency medication administration and will provide supporting data for planning future trials in this area.

Use of scratchcards for allocation concealment in a prehospital randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rapid Analgesia for Prehospital Hip Disruption was a small study designed to determine the feasibility of undertaking a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of paramedics administering Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block as early prehospital pain relief to patients with a fractured hip. The objective was to devise a simple and effective method of random allocation concealment suitable for use by paramedics while in the emergency prehospital setting. METHODS: Scratchcards were produced using scratch-off silver stickers which concealed the trial arm allocation. Paramedics were each allocated a unique range of consecutive numbers, used as both the scratchcard number and the patient's study ID. The cards were designed to allow the paramedic to write on the incident number, date and signature. A small envelope holding the cards was prepared for each paramedic. The study took place between 28 June 2016 and 31 July 2017 in the Swansea area. RESULTS: Nineteen trial paramedics used 71 scratchcards throughout the study and reported no problems randomly allocating patients using the scratchcards. Five protocol deviations were reported in relation to scratchcard use. On auditing the scratchcards, all unused cards were located, and no evidence of tampering with the silver panel was found. CONCLUSION: Paramedics can use scratchcards as a method of randomly allocating patients in trials in prehospital care. In the future, a method that allows only the top card to be selected and a more protective method of storing the cards should be used. Scratchcards can be considered for wider use in RCTs in the emergency prehospital setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN60065373; Post-results.

Facilitators and barriers to the delivery of the PARAMEDIC2 trial.

Background: PARAMEDIC2 was a medicines trial comparing adrenaline with placebo in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). At the time, United Kingdom (UK) Emergency Medical Systems (EMS) were inexperienced in delivering such research. Aim: To identify barriers and facilitators to delivery of the PARAMEDIC2 (Adrenaline) trial by five UK NHS EMS. Methods: This qualitative study took a grounded theory approach to thematic analysis of workshop data. Members of the trial teams from each service attended a workshop in November 2018 and discussed their experiences in answer to two prompt questions. Data were coded and themes presented. Results: Three main themes were identified: professionalism, organisational investment and unique features of EMS. The study provided an opportunity for recruiting paramedics and research paramedics to demonstrate their professionalism. Research paramedics felt it was part of their professional duty to initiate discussions with the patient/family regarding the trial rather than leave this task to the hospital teams as would usually happen. Organisational investment was reflected by prioritising trial training and further development of research paramedics. By these means, research culture was developed. The unique features of EMS such as geographical challenges were often addressed with technological solutions and through building relationships with internal teams. Conclusion: Barriers to trial delivery included infrequent exposure to the condition of interest and lack of continuity in research paramedic roles. Facilitators identified included flexibility of the research protocol, and organisational investment in the development of research paramedics.Participating in PARAMEDIC2 was challenging for the EMS involved, but ultimately strengthened their research culture.

The COVID-19 ambulance response assessment (CARA) study: a national survey of ambulance service healthcare professionals' preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic placed significant demand on the NHS, including ambulance services, but it is unclear how this affected ambulance service staff and paramedics in other clinical settings (e.g. urgent and primary care, armed services, prisons). This study aimed to measure the self-perceived preparedness and impact of the first wave of the pandemic on paramedics' psychological stress and perceived ability to deliver care. Methods: Ambulance clinicians and paramedics working in other healthcare settings were invited to participate in a three-phase sequential online survey during the acceleration (April 2020), peak (May 2020) and deceleration (September/October 2020) phases of the first wave of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom. Recruitment used social media, Trust internal bulletins and the College of Paramedics' communication channels, employing a convenience sampling strategy. Data were collected using purposively developed open- and closed-ended questions and the validated general health questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). Data were analysed using multi-level linear and logistic regression models. Results: Phase 1 recruited 3717 participants, reducing to 2709 (73%) by phase 2 and 2159 (58%) by phase 3. Participants were mostly male (58%, n = 2148) and registered paramedics (n = 1992, 54%). Mean (standard deviation) GHQ-12 scores were 16.5 (5.2) during phase 1, reducing to 15.2 (6.7) by phase 3. A total of 84% of participants (n = 3112) had a GHQ-12 score ≥ 12 during the first phase, indicating psychological distress. Participants that had higher GHQ-12 scores were feeling unprepared for the pandemic, and reported a lack of confidence in using personal protective equipment and managing cardiac arrests in confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients. Conclusions: Most participants reported psychological distress, the reasons for which are multi-factorial. Ambulance managers need to be aware of the risks to staff mental health and take action to mitigate these, to support staff in the delivery of unscheduled, emergency and urgent care under these additional pressures.

Route of drug administration in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PARAMEDIC-3).

Aims: The PARAMEDIC-3 trial evaluates the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an intraosseous first strategy, compared with an intravenous first strategy, for drug administration in adults who have sustained an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods: PARAMEDIC-3 is a pragmatic, allocation concealed, open-label, multi-centre, superiority randomised controlled trial. It will recruit 15,000 patients across English and Welsh ambulance services. Adults who have sustained an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are individually randomised to an intraosseous access first strategy or intravenous access first strategy in a 1:1 ratio through an opaque, sealed envelope system. The randomised allocation determines the route used for the first two attempts at vascular access. Participants are initially enrolled under a deferred consent model.The primary clinical-effectiveness outcome is survival at 30-days. Secondary outcomes include return of spontaneous circulation, neurological functional outcome, and health-related quality of life. Participants are followed-up to six-months following cardiac arrest. The primary health economic outcome is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Conclusion: The PARAMEDIC-3 trial will provide key information on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of drug route in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Trial registration: ISRCTN14223494, registered 16/08/2021, prospectively registered.

Heroism and paramedic practice: A constructivist metasynthesis of qualitative research.

Objectives: We aimed to identify, appraise, and synthesise the qualitative literature to develop theory on heroism and paramedic practice. Hypothesis/research question: What does published literature tell us about heroism and paramedic practice? Setting: Paramedics and other healthcare workers (HCWs) faced an outpouring of public support for them early in the COVID-19 pandemic which brought into focus the relationship between them and society, where they are portrayed as heroes. Participants: We conducted a metasynthesis using Evolved Grounded Theory and procedural guidelines of Noblit and Hare to guide analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines were also applied. Results: 151 papers were retrieved and eleven included in the final sample. Studies were moderate to very low quality, involving a wide range of methodologies and settings; none specifically explored heroism and paramedic practice. The following interrelated themes were constructed on heroism and paramedic practice: (a) Myth, Folk law, and storytelling in heroism and paramedic practice (b) The epic journey of heroism and paramedic practice (c) Heroes and Zeroes: The fluctuating Societal Value in heroism and paramedic practice (d) Politicisation, and objectification in Heroism and Paramedic practice. Conclusion: Paramedics have long been characterised as heroes, but this may not reflect their everyday experiences. Heroism in paramedic practice can provide scripts for prosocial action, inspiring others, and leading to more social heroic actions. Paramedics may however be ambivalent to such heroism narratives, due to politicisation, and objectification in the media and society. This metasynthesis is only one of many possible constructions of heroism and paramedic practice and is the first point in making sense of and developing theory on heroism and paramedic practice. Study registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021234851.

Assuring safe artificial intelligence in critical ambulance service response: study protocol.

Introduction: Early recognition of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) by ambulance service call centre operators is important so that cardiopulmonary resuscitation can be delivered immediately, but around 25% of OHCAs are not picked up by call centre operators. An artificial intelligence (AI) system has been developed to support call centre operators in the detection of OHCA. The study aims to (1) explore ambulance service stakeholder perceptions on the safety of OHCA AI decision support in call centres, and (2) develop a clinical safety case for the OHCA AI decision-support system. Methods and analysis: The study will be undertaken within the Welsh Ambulance Service. The study is part research and part service evaluation. The research utilises a qualitative study design based on thematic analysis of interview data. The service evaluation consists of the development of a clinical safety case based on document analysis, analysis of the AI model and its development process and informal interviews with the technology developer. Conclusions: AI presents many opportunities for ambulance services, but safety assurance requirements need to be understood. The ASSIST project will continue to explore and build the body of knowledge in this area.

Drug routes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A summary of current evidence.

Recent evidence showing the clinical effectiveness of drug therapy in cardiac arrest has led to renewed interest in the optimal route for drug administration in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Current resuscitation guidelines support use of the intravenous route for intra-arrest drug delivery, with the intraosseous route reserved for patients in whom intravenous access cannot be established. We sought to evaluate current evidence on drug route for administration of cardiac arrest drugs, with a specific focus on the intravenous and intraosseous route. We identified relevant animal, manikin, and human studies through targeted searches of MEDLINE in June 2022. Across pre-hospital systems, there is wide variation in use of the intraosseous route. Early administration of cardiac arrest drugs is associated with improved patient outcomes. Challenges in obtaining intravenous access mean that the intraosseous access may facilitate earlier drug administration. However, time from administration to the central circulation is unclear with pharmacokinetic data limited mainly to animal studies. Observational studies comparing the effect of intravenous and intraosseous drug administration on patient outcomes are challenging to interpret because of resuscitation time bias and other confounders. To date, no randomised controlled trial has directly compared the effect on patient outcomes of intraosseous compared with intravenous drug administration in cardiac arrest. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has described the urgent need for randomised controlled trials comparing the intravenous and intraosseous route in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Ongoing clinical trials will directly address this knowledge gap.

STRategies to manage Emergency ambulance Telephone Callers with sustained High needs: an Evaluation using linked Data (STRETCHED) - a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: UK ambulance services have identified a concern with high users of the 999 service and have set up 'frequent callers' services, ranging from within-service management to cross-sectoral multidisciplinary case management approaches. There is little evidence about how to address the needs of this patient group. AIM: To evaluate effectiveness, safety and efficiency of case management approaches to the care of people who frequently call the emergency ambulance service, and gain an understanding of barriers and facilitators to implementation. OBJECTIVES: (1) Develop an understanding of predicted mechanisms of change to underpin evaluation. (2) Describe epidemiology of sustained high users of 999 services. (3) Evaluate case management approaches to the care of people who call the 999 ambulance service frequently in terms of: (i) Further emergency contacts (999, emergency department, emergency admissions to hospital) (ii) Effects on other services (iii) Adverse events (deaths, injuries, serious medical emergencies and police arrests) (iv) Costs of intervention and care (v) Patient experience of care. (4) Identify challenges and opportunities associated with using case management models, including features associated with success, and develop theories about how case management works in this population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a multisite mixed-methods evaluation of case management for people who use ambulance services frequently by using anonymised linked routine data outcomes in a 'natural experiment' cohort design, in four regional ambulance services. We will conduct interviews and focus groups with service users, commissioners and emergency and non-acute care providers. The planned start and end dates of the study are 1 April 2019 and 1 September 2022, respectively ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received approval from the UK Health Research Authority (Confidentiality Advisory Group reference number: 19/CAG/0195; research ethics committee reference number: 19/WA/0216).We will collate feedback from our Lived Experience Advisory Panel, the Frequent Caller National Network and Research Management Group for targeted dissemination activities.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of paramedic administered fascia iliaca compartment block for emergency hip fracture (RAPID 2)-protocol for an individually randomised parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 75,000 people fracture a hip each year in the UK. This painful injury can be devastating-with a high associated mortality rate-and survivors likely to be more dependent and less mobile. Pain relief at the scene of injury is known to be inadequate. Intravenous morphine is usually given by paramedics, but opioids are less effective for dynamic pain and can cause serious side effects, including nausea, constipation, delirium and respiratory depression. These may delay surgery, require further treatment and worsen patient outcomes. We completed a feasibility study of paramedic-provided fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB), testing the intervention, trial methods and data collection. The study (RAPID) demonstrated that a full trial was feasible. In this subsequent study, we aim to test safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of paramedic-provided FICB as pain relief to patients with suspected hip fracture in the prehospital environment. METHODS: We will conduct a pragmatic multi-centre individually randomised parallel-group trial, with a 1:1 allocation between usual care (control) and FICB (intervention). Hospital clinicians in five sites (paired ambulance services and receiving hospitals) in England and Wales will train 220 paramedics to administer FICB. The primary outcome is change in pain score from pre-randomisation to arrival at the emergency department. One thousand four hundred patients are required to find a clinically important difference between trial arms in the primary outcome (standardised statistical effect ~ 0.2; 90% power, 5% significance). We will use NHS Digital (England) and the SAIL (Secure Anonymised Information Linkage) databank (Wales) to follow up patient outcomes using routine anonymised linked data in an efficient study design, and questionnaires to capture patient-reported outcomes at 1 and 4 months. Secondary outcomes include mortality, length of hospital stay, job cycle time, prehospital medications including morphine, presence of hip fracture, satisfaction, mobility, and NHS costs. We will assess safety by monitoring serious adverse events (SAEs). DISCUSSION: The trial will help to determine whether paramedic administered FICB is a safe, clinically and cost-effective treatment for suspected hip fracture in the pre-hospital setting. Impact will be shown if and when clinical guidelines either recommend or reject the use of FICB in routine practice in this context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15831813 . Registered on 22 September 2021.

Paramedic experiences of providing care in wales (UK) during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic (PECC-19): a qualitative study using evolved grounded theory.

OBJECTIVE: To explore paramedic experiences of providing care during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and develop theory in order to inform future policy and practice. DESIGN: Qualitative study using constructivist evolved grounded theory (EGT) methodology. One-to-one semistructured interviews were conducted using a general interview guide. Voice over Internet Protocol was used through Skype. SETTING: Conducted between March 2020 and November 2020 in the Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Services Trust UK which serves a population of three million. PARTICIPANTS: Paramedics were recruited through a poster circulated by email and social media. Following purposive sampling, 20 Paramedics were enrolled and interviewed. RESULTS: Emergent categories included: Protect me to protect you, Rapid disruption and adaptation, Trust in communication and information and United in hardship. The Basic Social Process was recognised to involve Tragic Choices, conceptualised through an EGT including Tragic personal and professional choices including concerns over personnel protective equipment (PPE), protecting themselves and their families, impact on mental health and difficult clinical decisions, Tragic organisational choices including decision making support, communication, mental health and well-being and Tragic societal choices involving public shows of support, utilisation and resourcing of health services. CONCLUSIONS: Rich insights were revealed into paramedic care during the COVID-19 pandemic consistent with other research. This care was provided in the context of competing and conflicting decisions and resources, where Tragic Choices have to be made which may challenge life's pricelessness. Well-being support, clinical decision making, appropriate PPE and healthcare resourcing are all influenced by choices made before and during the pandemic, and will continue as we recover and plan for future pandemics. The impact of COVID-19 may persist, especially if we fail to learn, if not we risk losing more lives in this and future pandemics and threatening the overwhelming collective effort which united society in hardship when responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: IRAS ID: 282 623.

Protocol for a constructivist metasynthesis of qualitative research of heroism and paramedic practice.

BACKGROUND: Exceptional demands have been placed on paramedics and other healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. An overwhelming outpouring of public support has unfolded, bringing into focus the relationship between paramedics, other HCWs and society, where they are portrayed as heroes. Scholars have studied the notion of heroism to society, and characteristics of such heroic status include: the voluntary nature of a heroic act, risk of physical or social harm, willingness to accept the consequences of action, acting for the benefit of others and without the expectation of gain. While some HCWs and paramedics may reflect these characteristics, many may not. Such heroic narratives can be damaging, stifling meaningful discussion around limits to duties, failing to acknowledge the importance of reciprocity and potentially imposing demands on paramedics and HCWs to be heroic. AIM: This article prospectively presents the protocol for a metasynthesis which aims to identify, appraise and synthesise the qualitative literature in order to develop theory on heroism and paramedic practice. METHODS: Evolved grounded theory methodology is followed along with the procedural guidelines of Noblit and Hare (1988) to guide the analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) have also been adopted when preparing this protocol and will be followed in the study proper. The protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO 2021, registration number CRD42021234851. RESULTS: We do not currently have results, but PRISMA guidelines will be followed when reporting our findings. CONCLUSION: Current narratives on heroism and paramedic practice are important in terms of the relationship between paramedics and society. The metasynthesis prospectively reported in this article serves as the first point in our journey of making sense of and developing theory on heroism and paramedic practice.

A simulation study of drone delivery of Automated External Defibrillator (AED) in Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA) in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Drones are increasingly used in healthcare, and feasibility studies of deployment of Automated External Defibrillators (AED) in Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) have been conducted. Despite the potential contribution of drones to healthcare, regulatory barriers exist, including limits on flights beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS). The aim of this project was to deliver an AED BVLOS in Wales. METHODS: We developed of a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) to identify requirements, constraints, organisation and roles and responsibilities associated with deploying a drone to deliver an AED BVLOS. We equipped a Penguin B drone with satellite-enabled technology to enhance situational awareness and safety for the remote pilot. A BVLOS Operating Safety Case and three-week flight test programme was conducted with an AED attached directly to parachute for deployment to simulated OHCA. RESULTS: We completed six flights totalling 92km, 1:02.5 hours of flight time and four successful parachute payload drops. We conducted a successful end-to-end flight demonstration of an AED delivered via BVLOS by drone to a simulated OHCA and resuscitation by lay responder's in a remote location; the final delivery of 4.5km was completed in 2:50 minutes. CONCLUSION: We have delivered an AED by parachute, from fixed wing drone BVLOS in the UK in simulated OHCA. This project adds to the body of knowledge required for regulatory assurance on drone use BVLOS. Further research is needed before routine use of this technology.

Mental health, well-being and support interventions for UK ambulance services staff: an evidence map, 2000 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Prior to COVID-19 there had been a renewed policy focus in the National Health Service on the health and well-being of the healthcare workforce, with the ambulance sector identified as a priority area. This focus is more important than ever as the sector deals with the acute and longer-term consequences of a pandemic. AIM: To systematically identify, summarise and map the evidence regarding mental health, well-being and support interventions for United Kingdom ambulance services staff and to identify evidence gaps. METHOD: Evidence mapping methodology of published and grey original research published in English from 1 January 2000 to 23 May 2020 describing the health risk, mental health and/or well-being of UK ambulance services staff including retired staff, volunteers and students. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and AMED databases, plus EThOS, Zetoc, OpenGrey and Google, were searched, alongside hand-searching of grey literature and bibliographies. Information was extracted on study aims, sample, design and methodology, funding source, country and key findings. Included studies were categorised into seven a priori theme areas. RESULTS: Of 1862 identified articles, 45 peer-reviewed studies are included as well as 24 grey literature documents. Peer-reviewed research was largely observational and focused on prevalence studies, post-traumatic stress disorder or organisational and individual social factors related to health and well-being. Most grey literature reported the development and testing of interventions. Across all study types, underpinning theory was often not cited. CONCLUSION: To date, intervention research has largely been funded by charities and published in the grey literature. Few studies were identified on self-harm, bullying, sleep and fatigue or alcohol and substance use. Theoretically informed intervention development and testing, including adaptation of innovations from other countries and 24-hour workforces, is needed. This evidence map provides important context for planning of staff well-being provision and research as the sector responds to and recovers from the pandemic. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018104659.

Long term outcomes of participants in the PARAMEDIC2 randomised trial of adrenaline in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

AIMS: We recently reported early outcomes in patients enrolled in a randomised trial of adrenaline in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the PARAMEDIC2 (Prehospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Administration in Cardiac Arrest) trial. The purpose of the present paper is to report long-term survival, quality of life, functional and cognitive outcomes at 3, 6 and 12-months. METHODS: PARAMEDIC2 was a pragmatic, individually randomised, double blind, controlled trial with an economic evaluation. Patients were randomised to either adrenaline or placebo. This paper reports results on the modified Rankin Scale scores at 6-months, survival at 6 and 12-months, as well as other cognitive, functional and quality of life outcomes collected at 3 and 6 months (Two Simple Questions, the Mini Mental State Examination, the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline Evaluation for Cardiac Arrest, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist - Civilian Version, Short-Form 12-item Health Survey and the EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L). RESULTS: 8014 patients were randomised with confirmed trial drug administration. At 6-months, 78 (2.0%) of the patients in the adrenaline group and 58 (1.5%) of patients in the placebo group had a favourable neurological outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval: 0.93, 1.97]). 117 (2.9%) patients were alive at 6-months in the adrenaline group compared with 86 (2.2%) in the placebo group (1.43 [1.05, 1.96], reducing to 107 (2.7%) and 80 (2.0%) respectively at 12-months (1.38 [1.00, 1.92]). Measures of 3 and 6-month cognitive, functional and quality of life outcomes were reduced, but there was no strong evidence of differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Adrenaline improved survival through to 12-months follow-up. The study did not find evidence of improvements in favourable neurological outcomes. (ISCRTN 73485024).

Adrenaline to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the PARAMEDIC2 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Adrenaline has been used as a treatment for cardiac arrest for many years, despite uncertainty about its effects on long-term outcomes and concerns that it may cause worse neurological outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the effects of adrenaline on survival and neurological outcomes, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of adrenaline use. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, randomised, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial and economic evaluation. Costs are expressed in Great British pounds and reported in 2016/17 prices. SETTING: This trial was set in five NHS ambulance services in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Adults treated for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were included. Patients were ineligible if they were pregnant, if they were aged < 16 years, if the cardiac arrest had been caused by anaphylaxis or life-threatening asthma, or if adrenaline had already been given. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to either adrenaline (1 mg) or placebo in a 1 : 1 allocation ratio by the opening of allocation-concealed treatment packs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was survival to 30 days. The secondary outcomes were survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, survival at 3, 6 and 12 months, neurological outcomes and health-related quality of life through to 6 months. The economic evaluation assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Participants, clinical teams and those assessing patient outcomes were masked to the treatment allocation. RESULTS: From December 2014 to October 2017, 8014 participants were assigned to the adrenaline (n = 4015) or to the placebo (n = 3999) arm. At 30 days, 130 out of 4012 participants (3.2%) in the adrenaline arm and 94 out of 3995 (2.4%) in the placebo arm were alive (adjusted odds ratio for survival 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.97). For secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission was higher for those receiving adrenaline than for those receiving placebo (23.6% vs. 8.0%; adjusted odds ratio 3.83, 95% confidence interval 3.30 to 4.43). The rate of favourable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was not significantly different between the arms (2.2% vs. 1.9%; adjusted odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.68). The pattern of improved survival but no significant improvement in neurological outcomes continued through to 6 months. By 12 months, survival in the adrenaline arm was 2.7%, compared with 2.0% in the placebo arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.92). An adjusted subgroup analysis did not identify significant interactions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adrenaline was estimated at £1,693,003 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest event and £81,070 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the lifetime of survivors. Additional economic analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for adrenaline at £982,880 per percentage point increase in overall survival and £377,232 per percentage point increase in neurological outcomes over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest. LIMITATIONS: The estimate for survival with a favourable neurological outcome is imprecise because of the small numbers of patients surviving with a good outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Adrenaline improved long-term survival, but there was no evidence that it significantly improved neurological outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year exceeds the threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year usually supported by the NHS. FUTURE WORK: Further research is required to better understand patients' preferences in relation to survival and neurological outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and to aid interpretation of the trial findings from a patient and public perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73485024 and EudraCT 2014-000792-11. 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. 25, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cardiac arrest is a medical emergency that happens when the heart suddenly stops pumping effectively. When cardiac arrest happens, awareness is lost within seconds. If emergency treatment is not started quickly, the person will die. The first treatments of cardiac arrest involve pressing on the chest, giving rescue breaths and defibrillation (electric shocks applied to the heart). If these treatments do not work, ambulance paramedics use a drug called adrenaline to try to restart the heart. Although this treatment has been used for many years, some recent research suggests that it may cause more harm than good. In this research study, we compared the effects of giving adrenaline with the effects of not giving adrenaline to people who had a cardiac arrest in the community. The research showed that adrenaline was effective at restarting the heart, so more people survived long enough to be admitted to hospital. Thirty days later, 130 out of 4012 patients (3.2%) who received adrenaline and 94 out of 3995 (2.4%) who did not receive adrenaline were alive. However, adrenaline did not improve the number of patients who went home from hospital having made a good recovery and were able to care for themselves. The evidence suggests that adrenaline represents a poor use of NHS funds on cost-effectiveness grounds. In a community survey, 95% of people who responded thought that long-term survival with good brain function was more important than just being alive. Further research exploring the opinions of patients and the public will help to understand the results of this research for the NHS.