Search

AbstractMiddle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is a form of an infectious respiratory disease, discovered in November 2012 in Saudi Arabia. According to the World Health Organization (WHO; Geneva, Switzerland) reports, a total of 2,519 laboratory-confirmed cases and 866 MERS-CoV-related deaths were recorded as of March 5, 2016.1The majority of reported cases originated from Saudi Arabia (2,121 cases). Also, MERS-CoV is believed to be of zoonotic origin and has been linked to camels in the Arabian area.1,2In this report, the authors discuss the lessons learned from the MERS-CoV outbreak at King Abdul-Aziz Medical City-Riyadh (KAMC-R) from August through September 2015 from the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) perspective. The discussion includes the changes in policies and paramedic’s practice, the training and education in infection control procedures, and the process of transportation of these cases. The authors hope to share their experience in this unique situation and highlight the preparedness and response efforts that took place by the division of EMS during the outbreak.

AbstractIntroduction:Stroke is a major emergency that can cause a significant morbidity and mortality. Advancement in stroke management in recent years has allowed more patients to be diagnosed and treated by stroke teams; however, stroke is a time-sensitive emergency that requires a high level of coordination, particularly within the prehospital phase. This research is to determine whether patients received by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) at a tertiary health care facility had shorter stroke team activation, time to computed tomography (CT), or time to receive intravenous thrombolytics.Methods:This research is a prospective cohort study of adults with stroke symptoms who required stroke team activation at a tertiary medical facility. The study included all patients received from September 1, 2017 through August 31, 2018. The primary outcome was the time difference to stroke team activation between patients received by EMS compared to patients that arrived by a private method of transportation. The secondary outcomes were the difference in time to CT scan and the time to receive intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA).Results:There were 75 (34.1%) patients who had been received by EMS, while 145 (65.9%) patients arrived via private transportation method (private car or by a friend/family member). The mean time to stroke team activation, time to CT, and time to receive thrombolytic therapy for the EMS group were: 8.19 (95% CI, 6.97 - 9.41) minutes; 18 (95% CI, 15.9 - 20.1) minutes; and 13.1 (95% CI, 6.95 - 19.3) minutes, respectively. Those for the private car group, on the other hand, were: 16 (95% CI, 12.4 - 19.6) minutes; 23.39 (95% CI, 19.6 - 27.2) minutes; and nine (95% CI, 4.54 -13.5) minutes, respectively. There was a significantly shorter time to stroke team activation for patients arriving via EMS compared to private car (P ≤ .00), but no significant difference was found on time to CT (P = .259) or time to receive rtPA (P = .100).Conclusion:Emergency Medical Service transportation of stroke patients can significantly shorten the time to stroke team activation, leading to shorter triage and accelerated patient management. However, there was no statistical difference in time to CT or time to receive rtPA. Patients with stroke symptoms may benefit more from EMS transportation compared to private methods of transportation.