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: 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.)