Search

Although most US emergency medical services (EMS) systems collect time-to-treatment data in their electronic prehospital patient care reports (PCRs), analysis of these data seldom appears in publications. We believe EMS agencies should routinely analyze the initial time-to-treatment data for various potentially life-threatening conditions. This not only assures that protocol-required treatments have been provided but can discover avoidable delays and drive protocol/treatment priority change. Our study purpose was to analyze the interval from 9-1-1 call receipt until the first administration of naloxone to adult opioid overdose victims to demonstrate the quality assurance importance of analyzing time-to-treatment data. Retrospective analysis of intervals from 9-1-1 call receipt to initial naloxone treatment in adult opioid overdose victims. We excluded victims <18 years of age and cases where a bystander, police, or a health care worker gave naloxone before EMS arrival. We compared data collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to determine its effect on the analysis. The mean patient age of 582 opioid overdose victims was 40.7 years [95% CI 39.6, 41.8] with 405 males (69.6%). EMS units' scene arrival was 6.7 minutes from the 9-1-1 call receipt. It took 1.8 minutes to reach the victim, and 8.6 additional minutes to administer the first naloxone regardless of administration route (70.4% intravenous, 26.1% intranasal, 2.7% intraosseous, 0.7% intramuscular). EMS personnel administered the first naloxone 17.1 minutes after the 9-1-1 call receipt, with 50.3% of the delay occurring after patient contact. There was no statistically significant difference in the times-to-treatment before vs. during the pandemic. The prepandemic interval from 9-1-1 call receipt until initial EMS administration of naloxone was substantial and did not change significantly during COVID-19. Our findings exemplify why EMS agencies should analyze initial time-to-treatment data, especially for life-threatening conditions, beyond assuring that protocol-required treatments have been provided. Based on our analysis, fire department crews now carry intranasal naloxone, and intranasal naloxone is given to "impaired" opioid overdose victims the first-arriving fire department or EMS personnel. We continue to collect data on intervals-to-treatment prospectively and monitor our critical process/treatment intervals using the plan-do-study-act model to improve our process/carry out change, and publish our results in a future publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest is burdened by a lack of high-quality clinical studies and the resultant lack of high-certainty evidence. This results in limited practice guideline recommendations, which may lead to uncertainty and variability in management. Critical care management is crucial in patients after cardiac arrest and affects outcome. Although guidelines address some relevant topics (including temperature control and neurological prognostication of comatose survivors, 2 topics for which there are more robust clinical studies), many important subject areas have limited or nonexistent clinical studies, leading to the absence of guidelines or low-certainty evidence. The American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Neurocritical Care Society collaborated to address this gap by organizing an expert consensus panel and conference. Twenty-four experienced practitioners (including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and a respiratory therapist) from multiple medical specialties, levels, institutions, and countries made up the panel. Topics were identified and prioritized by the panel and arranged by organ system to facilitate discussion, debate, and consensus building. Statements related to postarrest management were generated, and 80% agreement was required to approve a statement. Voting was anonymous and web based. Topics addressed include neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, hematological, infectious, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and general critical care management. Areas of uncertainty, areas for which no consensus was reached, and future research directions are also included. Until high-quality studies that inform practice guidelines in these areas are available, the expert panel consensus statements that are provided can advise clinicians on the critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest.