Search

Point-of-care laboratory testing (POCT) is associated with a reduced time to testing results and critical decision making within emergency departments. POCT is an essential clinical assessment tool because laboratory data are used to support timely critical decisions regarding acute medical conditions onditions ; however, there is currently limited research to support the use of POCT in the critical care transport environment. Few studies have evaluated the changes in patient care that occur after POCT during critical care transport. This study aims to contribute to the limited data available correlating prehospital POCT and changes in patient care.After institutional review board approval, a retrospective review of patients transported by a critical care transport team between October 1, 2013 and September 31, 2015 was completed. During the study period, 11,454 patients were transported, and 632 (5.51%) received POCT testing.Patient care changes were noted in 244 (38.6%) patient tests. The most frequent patient care alterations were ventilator settings (10.9%), electrolyte changes (10.4%), and unit bed upgrades (7.1%). POCT most frequently altered care for patients with post-cardiac arrest syndrome (64.7%), sepsis/septic shock (61.8%), diabetic ketoacidosis (54.5%), or pneumonia (49.3%).Patient care alterations occurred in 38.6% of patients undergoing POCT. Patient care was most frequently changed when patients were diagnosed with post-arrest, sepsis/septic shock, diabetic ketoacidosis, and pneumonia.

A lack of research has become a barrier to the common use of prehospital antibiotics. The objective of this study is to further the limited research of prehospital antibiotics through evaluating the clinical impact, safety, and reliability of prehospital cefazolin administration in trauma patients.We completed a retrospective evaluation of adult trauma patients who were transported by a single air and ground critical care transport program between January 1, 2014, and June 30 2017. Two hundred eighty-two patients received prehospital cefazolin for deep wounds or open fractures before their arrival at a single level 2 trauma center during the study period. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, injury type, infection rate, and identification of allergic reactions to cefazolin were also collected.Of 278 patients in the final analysis, 35.3% (n = 98) were diagnosed with an open fracture and 58.6% (n = 163) had a deep tissue injury. Eighty-two percent of prehospital open fracture diagnoses were confirmed in the emergency department. The overall infection rate was 6%; 31.3% of patients received a second dose of cefazolin in the emergency department during the study period. No patients receiving prehospital cefazolin had allergic or anaphylactic reactions. The overadministration rate was 5% (n = 14).Prehospital providers reliably identified open fractures, and prehospital cefazolin administration was not associated with anaphylactic reactions. This study population's infection rate of open fractures caused by traumatic injury was found to be 6%, and there was a low inappropriate administration rate.

Objective Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is often required in managing critically ill patients in the prehospital setting. Although etomidate is a commonly used induction agent for RSI, ketamine has gained new interest in prehospital management with reported neutral hemodynamic effects. Limited data exist to support ketamine as an alternative to etomidate, particularly in the prehospital setting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate hemodynamic changes after the administration of ketamine versus etomidate in prehospital RSI. Methods This retrospective study evaluated adult patients undergoing prehospital RSI over 13 months within a regional emergency transport medicine service. Hypotension was defined as a 20% decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP) within 15 minutes of receiving ketamine or etomidate. Hemodynamic data were collected 15 minutes before and 15 minutes after administration or until additional sedative medications were given. Data were analyzed using SPSS software (Version 21; IBM Corp, Armonk, NY), with P Results One hundred thirteen patients met the inclusion criteria (ketamine, n = 33; etomidate, n = 80), with the primary reasons for intubation being respiratory failure and trauma. There was no difference between the incidence of patients who experienced a 20% decrease in SBP (16% etomidate vs. 18% ketamine, P = .79). There were no significant differences in SBP pre- to postadministration between ketamine and etomidate. Conclusion No hemodynamic differences occurred between patients who received ketamine versus etomidate for prehospital RSI. Neither drug was associated with an increased need for additional sedatives, and neither drug was associated with an increased first-pass intubation success rate. Larger, prospective, powered studies are required to identify patients who may benefit from either ketamine or etomidate.