Search

Introduction: Dementia is a common co-morbidity in older people who require urgent or emergency ambulance attendance and influences clinical decisions and care pathways. Following an initial audit of dementia data and consultation with staff, a specific section (tab) to record dementia was introduced on an ambulance service electronic patient record (ePR). This includes a dementia diagnosis button and a free-text section. We aimed to assess whether and how this improved recording. Methods: To re-audit the proportion of ambulance ePRs where dementia is recorded for patients aged ≥65 years, and to describe the frequency of recording in patients aged <65; to analyse discrepancies in the place of recording dementia on the ePR by comparing data from the new dementia tab and other sections of the ePR. Results: We included 112,193 ePRs of patients aged ≥65 with ambulance attendance from a six-month period. The proportion with dementia recorded in patients aged ≥65 was 16.5%, increasing to 19.9% in patients aged ≥75, as compared to 13.5% (≥65) and 16.5% (≥75) in our previous audit. In this audit, of the 16.5% (n = 18,515) of records with dementia recorded, 69.9% (n = 12,939) used the dementia button and 25.4% (n = 4704) recorded text in the dementia tab. Dementia was recorded in ePR free-text fields (but not the dementia tab) in 29.7% of records. Eighteen other free-text fields were used in addition to, or instead of, the dementia tab, including the patient's social history, previous medical history and mental health. Dementia was present on the ePR of 0.4% (n = 461) of patients aged <65. Conclusions: An ePR dementia tab enabled ambulance clinicians to standardise the location of recording dementia and may have facilitated increased recording. We would recommend other ambulance trusts capture this information in a specific section to improve information sharing and to inform care planning for this patient group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) has a varied and uncertain trajectory. The recent development of analytical processing tools that draw on large longitudinal patient databases facilitates personalised long-term prognosis estimates. This has the potential to improve both shared treatment decision-making and psychological adjustment. However, there is limited research on how people with MS feel about prognosis communication and forecasting. This study investigated the prognosis communication experiences and preferences of people with MS and explored whether clinical, demographic and psychological factors are associated with prognosis information preferences. Methods: 3175 UK MS Register members (59% of those with active accounts) completed an online survey containing 17 questions about prognosis communication experiences, attitudes and preferences. Participants also completed validated questionnaires measuring coping strategies, tendencies to seek out (‘monitor’) or avoid (‘blunt’) information in threatening situations, and MS risk perceptions and reported their clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. Data already held on the MS Register about participants’ quality of life, anxiety and depression symptoms and MS impact were obtained and linked to the survey data. Results: 53.1% of participants had never discussed long-term prognosis with healthcare professionals. 54.2% lacked clarity about their long-term prognosis. 76% had strong preferences for receiving long-term prognosis information. 92.8% were interested in using tools that generate personalised predictions. Most participants considered prognostication useful for decision-making. Participants were more receptive to receiving prognosis information at later time-points, versus at diagnosis. A comprehensive set of sociodemographic, clinical and psychological variables predicted only 7.9% variance in prognosis information preferences. Conclusions: People with MS have an appetite for individualised long-term prognosis forecasting and their need for information is frequently unmet. Clinical studies deploying and evaluating interventions to support prognostication in MS are now needed. This study indicates suitable contexts and patient preferences for initial trials of long-term prognosis tools in clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the effectiveness of drugs such as epinephrine is highly time-dependent. An intraosseous route of drug administration may enable more rapid drug administration than an intravenous route; however, its effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized trial across 11 emergency medical systems in the United Kingdom that involved adults in cardiac arrest for whom vascular access for drug administration was needed. Patients were randomly assigned to receive treatment from paramedics by means of an intraosseous-first or intravenous-first vascular access strategy. The primary outcome was survival at 30 days. Key secondary outcomes included any return of spontaneous circulation and favorable neurologic function at hospital discharge (defined by a score of 3 or less on the modified Rankin scale, on which scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability). No adjustment for multiplicity was made., Results: A total of 6082 patients were assigned to a trial group: 3040 to the intraosseous group and 3042 to the intravenous group. At 30 days, 137 of 3030 patients (4.5%) in the intraosseous group and 155 of 3034 (5.1%) in the intravenous group were alive (adjusted odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.32; P = 0.74). At the time of hospital discharge, a favorable neurologic outcome was observed in 80 of 2994 patients (2.7%) in the intraosseous group and in 85 of 2986 (2.8%) in the intravenous group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.47); a return of spontaneous circulation at any time occurred in 1092 of 3031 patients (36.0%) and in 1186 of 3035 patients (39.1%), respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.97). During the trial, one adverse event, which occurred in the intraosseous group, was reported., Conclusions: Among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest requiring drug therapy, the use of an intraosseous-first vascular access strategy did not result in higher 30-day survival than an intravenous-first strategy. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; PARAMEDIC-3 ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN14223494.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: GDP is co-chair of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). CD and JPN are emeritus members of the ILCOR Advanced Life Support task force. KC and HP are current members of the ILCOR Advanced Life Support task force. GDP is editor-in-chief and JPN is founding editor of Resuscitation Plus. KC is associate editor of Resuscitation Plus and guest editor for the research methodology special edition., (© 2023 The Authors.)