Search

One of the primary concerns associated with open fractures is the development of a fracture-related infection (FRI). To minimize the risk of developing an FRI and subsequent morbidity, prophylactic antibiotics should be administered to patients with open fractures as soon as possible. While the antibiotic recommendations for severe open fractures are somewhat debatable, the use of a cephalosporin remains a mainstay of prophylactic treatment. Though administration of prehospital antibiotics does represent an expansion of EMS responsibilities, there have been several other treatment expansions in the prehospital setting, such as the administration of tranexamic acid and the application of pelvic binders. The administration of antibiotics, specifically cefazolin, is inexpensive, technically simple, and does not require special storage. The following recommendations are supported by and represent consensus of the COT, OTA, ACEP, NAEMSP and NAEMT with regards to prehospital antibiotic prophylaxis for suspected fractures: In a responsive patient with no history of penicillin or cephalosporin allergy, the administration by EMS of a 1st generation cephalosporin should be performed after the management of life threats. This intervention should not delay transport. In an obtunded patient, the administration by EMS of a 1st generation cephalosporin should be performed after the management of life-threats. This intervention should not delay transport. In a responsive patient with a documented penicillin allergy, the administration by EMS of a 1st generation cephalosporin should be performed with close monitoring after the management of life-threats. This intervention should not delay transport. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Exsanguination remains the leading cause of preventable death among victims of trauma. For adult and pediatric trauma patients in the prehospital phase of care, methods to control hemorrhage and hemostatic resuscitation are described in this joint consensus opinion by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, the American College of Emergency Physicians, and the National Association of EMS Physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On March 13, 2019 the EMS Examination Committee of the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) approved modifications to the Core Content of EMS Medicine. The Core Content is used to define the subspecialty of EMS Medicine, provides the basis for questions to be used during written examinations, and leads to development of a certification examination blueprint. The Core Content defines the universe of knowledge for the treatment of prehospital patients that is necessary to practice EMS Medicine. It informs fellowship directors and candidates for certification of the full range of content that might appear on certification examinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regionalization of medical resources by designating specialty receiving centers, such as trauma and stroke centers, within emergency medical services (EMS) systems is intended to ensure the highest-quality patient care in the most efficient and fiscally responsible fashion. Significant advances in the past decade such as induction of therapeutic hypothermia following resuscitation from cardiac arrest and a time-driven, algorithmic approach to management of septic patients have created compelling arguments for similar designation for specialized resuscitative interventions. Resuscitation of critically ill patients is both labor- and resource-intensive. It can significantly interrupt emergency department (ED) patient throughput. In addition, clinical progress in developing resuscitation techniques is often dependent on the presence of a strong research infrastructure to generate and validate new therapies. It is not feasible for many hospitals to make the commitment to care for large numbers of critically ill patients and the accompanying investigational activities, whether in the prehospital, ED, or inpatient arena. Because of this, the question of whether EMS systems should designate specific hospitals as “resuscitation centers” has now come center stage. Just as EMS systems currently delineate criteria and monitor compliance for trauma, ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and stroke centers, strong logic now exists to develop similar standards for resuscitation facilities. Accordingly, this discussion reviews the current applicable trends in resuscitation science and presents a rationale for resuscitation center designation within EMS systems. Potential barriers to the establishment of such centers are discussed and strategies to overcome them are proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]