Concept: Emergency medical services
Background Worldwide, 2.75 billion passengers fly on commercial airlines annually. When in-flight medical emergencies occur, access to care is limited. We describe in-flight medical emergencies and the outcomes of these events. Methods We reviewed records of in-flight medical emergency calls from five domestic and international airlines to a physician-directed medical communications center from January 1, 2008, through October 31, 2010. We characterized the most common medical problems and the type of on-board assistance rendered. We determined the incidence of and factors associated with unscheduled aircraft diversion, transport to a hospital, and hospital admission, and we determined the incidence of death. Results There were 11,920 in-flight medical emergencies resulting in calls to the center (1 medical emergency per 604 flights). The most common problems were syncope or presyncope (37.4% of cases), respiratory symptoms (12.1%), and nausea or vomiting (9.5%). Physician passengers provided medical assistance in 48.1% of in-flight medical emergencies, and aircraft diversion occurred in 7.3%. Of 10,914 patients for whom postflight follow-up data were available, 25.8% were transported to a hospital by emergency-medical-service personnel, 8.6% were admitted, and 0.3% died. The most common triggers for admission were possible stroke (odds ratio, 3.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88 to 6.03), respiratory symptoms (odds ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.48 to 3.06), and cardiac symptoms (odds ratio, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.77). Conclusions Most in-flight medical emergencies were related to syncope, respiratory symptoms, or gastrointestinal symptoms, and a physician was frequently the responding medical volunteer. Few in-flight medical emergencies resulted in diversion of aircraft or death; one fourth of passengers who had an in-flight medical emergency underwent additional evaluation in a hospital. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health.).
BACKGROUND: Increasing demand on the UK emergency services is creating interest in reviewing the structure and content of ambulance services. Only 10% of emergency calls have been seen to be life-threatening and, thus, paramedics, as many patients' first contact with the health service, have the potential to use their skills to reduce the demand on Emergency Departments. This systematic literature review aimed to identify evidence of paramedics trained with extra skills and the impact of this on patient care and interrelating services such as General Practices or Emergency Departments. METHODS: International literature from Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ProQuest, Scopus and grey literature from 1990 were included. Articles about any prehospital emergency care provider trained with extra skill(s) beyond their baseline competencies and evaluated in practice were included. Specific procedures for certain conditions and the extensively evaluated UK Emergency Care Practitioner role were excluded. RESULTS: 8724 articles were identified, of which 19 met the inclusion criteria. 14 articles considered paramedic patient assessment and management skills, two articles considered paramedic safeguarding skills, two health education and learning sharing and one health information. There is valuable evidence for paramedic assessing and managing patients autonomously to reduce Emergency Department conveyance which is acceptable to patients and carers. Evidence for other paramedic skills is less robust, reflecting a difficulty with rigorous research in prehospital emergency care. CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies many viable extra skills for paramedics but the evidence is not strong enough to guide policy. The findings should be used to guide future research, particularly into paramedic care for elderly people.
We provide recommendations for stocking of antidotes used in emergency departments (EDs). An expert panel representing diverse perspectives (clinical pharmacology, medical toxicology, critical care medicine, hematology/oncology, hospital pharmacy, emergency medicine, emergency medical services, pediatric emergency medicine, pediatric critical care medicine, poison centers, hospital administration, and public health) was formed to create recommendations for antidote stocking. Using a standardized summary of the medical literature, the primary reviewer for each antidote proposed guidelines for antidote stocking to the full panel. The panel used a formal iterative process to reach their recommendation for both the quantity of antidote that should be stocked and the acceptable timeframe for its delivery. The panel recommended consideration of 45 antidotes; 44 were recommended for stocking, of which 23 should be immediately available. In most hospitals, this timeframe requires that the antidote be stocked in a location that allows immediate availability. Another 14 antidotes were recommended for availability within 1 hour of the decision to administer, allowing the antidote to be stocked in the hospital pharmacy if the hospital has a mechanism for prompt delivery of antidotes. The panel recommended that each hospital perform a formal antidote hazard vulnerability assessment to determine its specific need for antidote stocking. Antidote administration is an important part of emergency care. These expert recommendations provide a tool for hospitals that offer emergency care to provide appropriate care of poisoned patients.
Search filters aid clinicians and academics to accurately locate literature. Despite this, there is no search filter or Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term pertaining to paramedics. Therefore, the aim of this study was to create two filters to meet to different needs of paramedic clinicians and academics.
Background During cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the interruption of manual chest compressions for rescue breathing reduces blood flow and possibly survival. We assessed whether outcomes after continuous compressions with positive-pressure ventilation differed from those after compressions that were interrupted for ventilations at a ratio of 30 compressions to two ventilations. Methods This cluster-randomized trial with crossover included 114 emergency medical service (EMS) agencies. Adults with non-trauma-related cardiac arrest who were treated by EMS providers received continuous chest compressions (intervention group) or interrupted chest compressions (control group). The primary outcome was the rate of survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included the modified Rankin scale score (on a scale from 0 to 6, with a score of ≤3 indicating favorable neurologic function). CPR process was measured to assess compliance. Results Of 23,711 patients included in the primary analysis, 12,653 were assigned to the intervention group and 11,058 to the control group. A total of 1129 of 12,613 patients with available data (9.0%) in the intervention group and 1072 of 11,035 with available data (9.7%) in the control group survived until discharge (difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 0.1; P=0.07); 7.0% of the patients in the intervention group and 7.7% of those in the control group survived with favorable neurologic function at discharge (difference, -0.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 0.1, P=0.09). Hospital-free survival was significantly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (mean difference, -0.2 days; 95% CI, -0.3 to -0.1; P=0.004). Conclusions In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, continuous chest compressions during CPR performed by EMS providers did not result in significantly higher rates of survival or favorable neurologic function than did interrupted chest compressions. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ROC CCC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01372748 .).
The survival rate of sudden Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrests (OHCAs) increases by early notification of Emergency Medical Systems (EMS) and early application of basic life support (BLS) techniques and defibrillation. A Text Message ™ alert system for trained volunteers in the community was implemented in the Netherlands to reduce response times. The aim of this study was to assess if this system improves survival after OHCA.
At 2:50 p.m. on April 15, nearly 3 hours after the first runner completed the Boston Marathon, two blasts ripped through the crowd that was gathered along the approach to the finish line, killing 3 people and injuring more than 260. Within moments, the crowd’s initial panic was replaced by purposeful action, as bystanders ran to, rather than from, the horror to help the injured. Law-enforcement and emergency medical services (EMS) personnel swiftly converged on the scene. Within minutes, ambulances began transporting the most critically injured to nearby hospitals. Once victims reached Boston’s hospitals, the story continued in the same . . .
On the evening of June 23, 2016, a white powder advertised as cocaine was purchased off the streets from multiple sources and used by an unknown number of persons in New Haven, Connecticut. During a period of less than 8 hours, 12 patients were brought to the emergency department (ED) at Yale New Haven Hospital, experiencing signs and symptoms consistent with opioid overdose. The route of intoxication was not known, but presumed to be insufflation (“snorting”) in most cases. Some patients required doses of the opioid antidote naloxone exceeding 4 mg (usual initial dose = 0.1-0.2 mg intravenously), and several patients who were alert after receiving naloxone subsequently developed respiratory failure. Nine patients were admitted to the hospital, including four to the intensive care unit (ICU); three required endotracheal intubation, and one required continuous naloxone infusion. Three patients died. The white powder was determined to be fentanyl, a drug 50 times more potent than heroin, and it included trace amounts of cocaine. The episode triggered rapid notification of public health and law enforcement agencies, interviews of patients and their family members to trace and limit further use or distribution of the fentanyl, immediate naloxone resupply and augmentation for emergency medical services (EMS) crews, public health alerts, and plans to accelerate naloxone distribution to opioid users and their friends and families. Effective communication and timely, coordinated, collaborative actions of community partners reduced the harm caused by this event and prevented potential subsequent episodes.
On August 15, 2016, the Mayor’s Office of Drug Control Policy in Huntington, West Virginia, notified the Cabell-Huntington Health Department (CHHD) of multiple calls regarding opioid overdose received by the emergency medical system (EMS) during 3 p.m.-8 p.m. that day. A public health investigation and response conducted by the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health (BPH) and CHHD identified 20 opioid overdose cases within a 53-hour period in Cabell County; all cases included emergency department (ED) encounters. EMS personnel, other first responders, and ED providers administered the opioid antidote naloxone to 16 (80%) patients, six of whom were administered multiple doses, suggesting exposure to a highly potent opioid. No patients received referral for recovery support services. In addition to the public health investigation, a public safety investigation was conducted; comprehensive opioid toxicology testing of clinical specimens identified the synthetic opioid fentanyl* and novel fentanyl analogs, including carfentanil,(†) which had been used by patients who overdosed in Huntington. Results of these two investigations highlight the importance of collaboration between public health and public safety agencies to provide in-depth surveillance data from opioid overdose outbreaks that involve high-potency fentanyl analogs. These data facilitated a public health response through increased awareness of powerful opioid substances requiring multiple naloxone doses for reversal, and improved patient linkage to recovery support services and a harm reduction program from the ED after opioid overdose.
Background High-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula has been increasingly used in infants with bronchiolitis, despite limited high-quality evidence of its efficacy. The efficacy of high-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula in settings other than intensive care units (ICUs) is unclear. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned infants younger than 12 months of age who had bronchiolitis and a need for supplemental oxygen therapy to receive either high-flow oxygen therapy (high-flow group) or standard oxygen therapy (standard-therapy group). Infants in the standard-therapy group could receive rescue high-flow oxygen therapy if their condition met criteria for treatment failure. The primary outcome was escalation of care due to treatment failure (defined as meeting ≥3 of 4 clinical criteria: persistent tachycardia, tachypnea, hypoxemia, and medical review triggered by a hospital early-warning tool). Secondary outcomes included duration of hospital stay, duration of oxygen therapy, and rates of transfer to a tertiary hospital, ICU admission, intubation, and adverse events. Results The analyses included 1472 patients. The percentage of infants receiving escalation of care was 12% (87 of 739 infants) in the high-flow group, as compared with 23% (167 of 733) in the standard-therapy group (risk difference, -11 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -15 to -7; P<0.001). No significant differences were observed in the duration of hospital stay or the duration of oxygen therapy. In each group, one case of pneumothorax (<1% of infants) occurred. Among the 167 infants in the standard-therapy group who had treatment failure, 102 (61%) had a response to high-flow rescue therapy. Conclusions Among infants with bronchiolitis who were treated outside an ICU, those who received high-flow oxygen therapy had significantly lower rates of escalation of care due to treatment failure than those in the group that received standard oxygen therapy. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council and others; Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12613000388718 .).