Search

Background Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are a unique setting because care for the chief complaint is given across all ages in a complex and high-risk environment that may pose a threat to patient safety. Traditionally, a reporting system is commonly used to raise awareness of adverse events (AEs); however, it could fail to detect an AE. Several methods are needed to evaluate patient safety in EMS. In this light, this study was conducted to (1) develop a national ambulance trigger tool (ATT) with a guide containing descriptions of triggers, examples of use, and categorization of near misses (NMs), no harm incidents (NHIs), and harmful incidents (HIs) and (2) use the ATT on randomly selected ambulance records. Methods The ambulance trigger tool was developed in a stepwise manner through (1) a literature review; (2) three sessions of structured group discussions with an expert panel having knowledge of emergency medical service, patient safety, and development of trigger tools; (3) a retrospective record review of 900 randomly selected journals with three review teams from different geographical locations; and (4) inter-rater reliability testing between reviewers. Results From the literature review, 34 triggers were derived. After removing clinically irrelevant ones and combining others through three sessions of structured discussions, 19 remained. The most common triggers identified in the 900 randomly selected records were deviation from treatment guidelines (30.4%), the patient is non conveyed after EMS assessment (20.8%), and incomplete documentation (14.4%). The positive triggers were categorized as a near miss (40.9%), no harm (3.7%), and harmful incident (0.2%). Inter-rater reliability testing showed good agreement in both sessions. Conclusion This study shows that a trigger tool together with a retrospective record review can be used as a method to measure the frequency of harmful incidents, no harm incidents, and near misses in the EMS, thus complementing

Background Pediatric trauma patients constitute a significant portion of the trauma population treated by Swedish Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and trauma remains a notable cause of death among Swedish children. Previous research has identified potential challenges in prehospital assessments and interventions for pediatric patients. In Sweden, there is limited information available regarding pediatric trauma patients in the EMS. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of pediatric trauma patients within the Swedish EMS and describe the prehospital assessments, interventions, and clinical outcomes. Methods This retrospective observational study was conducted in a region of Southwestern Sweden. A random sample from ambulance and hospital records from the year 2019 was selected. Inclusion criteria were children aged 0–16 years who were involved in trauma and assessed by EMS clinicians. Results A total of 440 children were included in the study, representing 8.4% of the overall trauma cases. The median age was 9 years (IQR 3–12), and 60.5% were male. The leading causes of injury were low (34.8%) and high energy falls (21%), followed by traffic accidents. The children were assessed as severely injured in 4.5% of cases. A quarter of the children remained at the scene after assessment. Complete vital signs were assessed in 29.3% of children, and 81.8% of children were assessed according to the ABCDE structure. The most common intervention performed by prehospital professionals was the administration of medication. The mortality rate was 0.2%. Conclusions Pediatric trauma cases accounted for 8.4% of the overall trauma population with a variations in injury mechanisms and types. Vital sign assessments were incomplete for a significant proportion of children. The adherence to the ABCDE structure, however, was higher. The children remained at the scene after assessment requires further investigation for patient safety.

Background Pediatric trauma patients constitute a significant portion of the trauma population treated by Swedish Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and trauma remains a notable cause of death among Swedish children. Previous research has identified potential challenges in prehospital assessments and interventions for pediatric patients. In Sweden, there is limited information available regarding pediatric trauma patients in the EMS. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of pediatric trauma patients within the Swedish EMS and describe the prehospital assessments, interventions, and clinical outcomes. Methods This retrospective observational study was conducted in a region of Southwestern Sweden. A random sample from ambulance and hospital records from the year 2019 was selected. Inclusion criteria were children aged 0–16 years who were involved in trauma and assessed by EMS clinicians. Results A total of 440 children were included in the study, representing 8.4% of the overall trauma cases. The median age was 9 years (IQR 3–12), and 60.5% were male. The leading causes of injury were low (34.8%) and high energy falls (21%), followed by traffic accidents. The children were assessed as severely injured in 4.5% of cases. A quarter of the children remained at the scene after assessment. Complete vital signs were assessed in 29.3% of children, and 81.8% of children were assessed according to the ABCDE structure. The most common intervention performed by prehospital professionals was the administration of medication. The mortality rate was 0.2%. Conclusions Pediatric trauma cases accounted for 8.4% of the overall trauma population with a variations in injury mechanisms and types. Vital sign assessments were incomplete for a significant proportion of children. The adherence to the ABCDE structure, however, was higher. The children remained at the scene after assessment requires further investigation for patient safety.

Background Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are a unique setting because care for the chief complaint is given across all ages in a complex and high-risk environment that may pose a threat to patient safety. Traditionally, a reporting system is commonly used to raise awareness of adverse events (AEs); however, it could fail to detect an AE. Several methods are needed to evaluate patient safety in EMS. In this light, this study was conducted to (1) develop a national ambulance trigger tool (ATT) with a guide containing descriptions of triggers, examples of use, and categorization of near misses (NMs), no harm incidents (NHIs), and harmful incidents (HIs) and (2) use the ATT on randomly selected ambulance records. Methods The ambulance trigger tool was developed in a stepwise manner through (1) a literature review; (2) three sessions of structured group discussions with an expert panel having knowledge of emergency medical service, patient safety, and development of trigger tools; (3) a retrospective record review of 900 randomly selected journals with three review teams from different geographical locations; and (4) inter-rater reliability testing between reviewers. Results From the literature review, 34 triggers were derived. After removing clinically irrelevant ones and combining others through three sessions of structured discussions, 19 remained. The most common triggers identified in the 900 randomly selected records were deviation from treatment guidelines (30.4%), the patient is non conveyed after EMS assessment (20.8%), and incomplete documentation (14.4%). The positive triggers were categorized as a near miss (40.9%), no harm (3.7%), and harmful incident (0.2%). Inter-rater reliability testing showed good agreement in both sessions. Conclusion This study shows that a trigger tool together with a retrospective record review can be used as a method to measure the frequency of harmful incidents, no harm incidents, and near misses in the EMS, thus complementing

Background Globally, injuries are a major health problem, and in Sweden, injuries are the second most common reason for ambulance dispatch. However, there is a knowledge gap regarding the epidemiology of injuries requiring assessment by emergency medical services (EMS) in Sweden. The aim of the present study was to describe the prehospital population with injuries that have been assessed and treated by EMS. Methods A randomly selected retrospective sample was collected from 1 January through 31 December 2019 in a region in southwestern Sweden. Data were collected from ambulance and hospital medical records. Results Among 153,724 primary assignments, 26,697 (17.4%) were caused by injuries. The study cohort consisted of 5,235 patients, of whom 50.5% were men, and the median age was 63 years. The most common cause of injury was low-energy fall (51.4%), and this was the cause in 77.8% of those aged > 63 years and in 26.7% of those aged ≤ 63 years. The injury mechanism was a motor vehicle in 8.0%, a motorcycle in 2.1% and a bicycle in 4.0%. The most common trauma location was the residential area (55.5% overall; 77.9% in the elderly and 34.0% in the younger group). In the prehospital setting, the most frequent clinical sign was a wound (33.2%), a closed fracture were seen in 18.9% and an open fracture in 1.0%. Pain was reported in 74.9% and 42.9% reported severe pain. Medication was given to 42.4% of patients before arrival in the hospital. The most frequent triage colour according to the RETTS was orange (46.7%), whereas only 4.4% were triaged red. Among all patients, 83.6% were transported to the hospital, and 27.8% received fracture treatment after hospital admission. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 3.4%. Conclusion Among EMS assignments in southwestern Sweden, 17% were caused by injury equally distributed between women and men. More than half of these cases were caused by low-energy falls, and the most common trauma location was a residential area. The major

Background Globally, injuries are a major health problem, and in Sweden, injuries are the second most common reason for ambulance dispatch. However, there is a knowledge gap regarding the epidemiology of injuries requiring assessment by emergency medical services (EMS) in Sweden. The aim of the present study was to describe the prehospital population with injuries that have been assessed and treated by EMS. Methods A randomly selected retrospective sample was collected from 1 January through 31 December 2019 in a region in southwestern Sweden. Data were collected from ambulance and hospital medical records. Results Among 153,724 primary assignments, 26,697 (17.4%) were caused by injuries. The study cohort consisted of 5,235 patients, of whom 50.5% were men, and the median age was 63 years. The most common cause of injury was low-energy fall (51.4%), and this was the cause in 77.8% of those aged > 63 years and in 26.7% of those aged ≤ 63 years. The injury mechanism was a motor vehicle in 8.0%, a motorcycle in 2.1% and a bicycle in 4.0%. The most common trauma location was the residential area (55.5% overall; 77.9% in the elderly and 34.0% in the younger group). In the prehospital setting, the most frequent clinical sign was a wound (33.2%), a closed fracture were seen in 18.9% and an open fracture in 1.0%. Pain was reported in 74.9% and 42.9% reported severe pain. Medication was given to 42.4% of patients before arrival in the hospital. The most frequent triage colour according to the RETTS was orange (46.7%), whereas only 4.4% were triaged red. Among all patients, 83.6% were transported to the hospital, and 27.8% received fracture treatment after hospital admission. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 3.4%. Conclusion Among EMS assignments in southwestern Sweden, 17% were caused by injury equally distributed between women and men. More than half of these cases were caused by low-energy falls, and the most common trauma location was a residential area. The major

Background Patients who call for emergency medical services (EMS) due to abdominal pain suffer from a broad spectrum of diseases, some of which are time sensitive. As a result of the introduction of the concept of ‘optimal level of care‘, some patients with abdominal pain are triaged to other levels of care than in an emergency department (ED). We hypothesised that it could be challenging in a patient safety perspective. Aim This study aims to describe consecutive patients who call for EMS due to abdominal pain and are triaged to self-care by EMS clinicians. Methods This was an observational study performed in an EMS organisation in Western Sweden during 2020. The triage tool Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System (RETTS), which included Emergency Signs and Symptom (ESS) codes, was used to find medical records where patients with abdominal pain have been triaged to self-care and 194 patients was included in the study. Results Of total 48,311 ambulance missions, A total of 1747 patients were labelled with ESS code six (abdominal pain), including 223 (12.8%) who were given the code for self-care and 194 who were further assessed by the research group. Of these patients, 32 (16.3%) had a return visit within 96 hours due to the same symptoms and 11 (5.6%) were hospitalised. In six of these patients, the EMS triage was evaluated retrospectively and assessed as inappropriate. These patients had a final diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aneurysm (n = 1), acute appendicitis with peritonitis (n = 2) and acute pancreatitis (n = 3). All these patients required extensive evaluation and different treatments, including acute surgery, antibiotics and fluid therapy. Conclusion Amongst the 1747 patients assessed by EMS due to abdominal pain, 223 (12.8%) were triaged to self-care. Of the 194 patients who were further assessed, 16.3% required a return visit to the ED within 96 hours and 5.6% were hospitalised. Six patients had obvious time-sensitive conditions. Our study highlights

Background Patients who call for emergency medical services (EMS) due to abdominal pain suffer from a broad spectrum of diseases, some of which are time sensitive. As a result of the introduction of the concept of ‘optimal level of care‘, some patients with abdominal pain are triaged to other levels of care than in an emergency department (ED). We hypothesised that it could be challenging in a patient safety perspective. Aim This study aims to describe consecutive patients who call for EMS due to abdominal pain and are triaged to self-care by EMS clinicians. Methods This was an observational study performed in an EMS organisation in Western Sweden during 2020. The triage tool Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System (RETTS), which included Emergency Signs and Symptom (ESS) codes, was used to find medical records where patients with abdominal pain have been triaged to self-care and 194 patients was included in the study. Results Of total 48,311 ambulance missions, A total of 1747 patients were labelled with ESS code six (abdominal pain), including 223 (12.8%) who were given the code for self-care and 194 who were further assessed by the research group. Of these patients, 32 (16.3%) had a return visit within 96 hours due to the same symptoms and 11 (5.6%) were hospitalised. In six of these patients, the EMS triage was evaluated retrospectively and assessed as inappropriate. These patients had a final diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aneurysm (n = 1), acute appendicitis with peritonitis (n = 2) and acute pancreatitis (n = 3). All these patients required extensive evaluation and different treatments, including acute surgery, antibiotics and fluid therapy. Conclusion Amongst the 1747 patients assessed by EMS due to abdominal pain, 223 (12.8%) were triaged to self-care. Of the 194 patients who were further assessed, 16.3% required a return visit to the ED within 96 hours and 5.6% were hospitalised. Six patients had obvious time-sensitive conditions. Our study highlights

BACKGROUND: Dizziness is a relatively common symptom among patients who call for the emergency medical services (EMS). AIM: To identify factors of importance for the early identification of a time-sensitive condition behind the symptom of dizziness among patients assessed by the EMS. METHODS: All patients assessed by the EMS and triaged using Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment (RETTS) for adults code 11 (=dizziness) in the 660,000 inhabitants in the Municipality of Gothenburg, Sweden, in 2016, were considered for inclusion. The patients were divided into two groups according to the final diagnosis (a time-sensitive condition, yes or no). RESULTS: There were 1536 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 96 (6.2%) had a time-sensitive condition. The majority of these had a stroke/transitory ischaemic attack (TIA). Eight predictors of a time-sensitive condition were identified. Three were associated with a reduced risk: 1) the dizziness was of a rotatory type, 2) the dizziness had a sudden onset and 3) increasing body temperature. Five were associated with an increased risk: 1) sudden onset of headache, 2) a history of head trauma, 3) symptoms of nausea or vomiting, 4) on treatment with anticoagulants and 5) increasing systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSION: Among 1536 patients who were triaged by the EMS for dizziness, 6.2% had a time-sensitive condition. On the arrival of the EMS, eight factors were associated with the risk of having a time-sensitive condition. All these factors were linked to the type of symptoms or to clinical findings on the arrival of the EMS or to the recent clinical history.

BACKGROUND: Dizziness is a relatively common symptom among patients who call for the emergency medical services (EMS). AIM: To identify factors of importance for the early identification of a time-sensitive condition behind the symptom of dizziness among patients assessed by the EMS. METHODS: All patients assessed by the EMS and triaged using Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment (RETTS) for adults code 11 (=dizziness) in the 660,000 inhabitants in the Municipality of Gothenburg, Sweden, in 2016, were considered for inclusion. The patients were divided into two groups according to the final diagnosis (a time-sensitive condition, yes or no). RESULTS: There were 1536 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 96 (6.2%) had a time-sensitive condition. The majority of these had a stroke/transitory ischaemic attack (TIA). Eight predictors of a time-sensitive condition were identified. Three were associated with a reduced risk: 1) the dizziness was of a rotatory type, 2) the dizziness had a sudden onset and 3) increasing body temperature. Five were associated with an increased risk: 1) sudden onset of headache, 2) a history of head trauma, 3) symptoms of nausea or vomiting, 4) on treatment with anticoagulants and 5) increasing systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSION: Among 1536 patients who were triaged by the EMS for dizziness, 6.2% had a time-sensitive condition. On the arrival of the EMS, eight factors were associated with the risk of having a time-sensitive condition. All these factors were linked to the type of symptoms or to clinical findings on the arrival of the EMS or to the recent clinical history.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital care has changed in recent decades. Advanced assessments and decisions are made early in the care chain. Patient assessments form the basis of a decision relating to prehospital treatment and the level of care. This development imposes heavy demands on the ability of emergency medical service (EMS) clinicians properly to assess the patient. EMS clinicians have a number of assessment instruments and triage systems available to support their decisions. Many of these instruments are based on vital signs and can sometimes miss time-sensitive conditions. With this commentary, we would like to start a discussion to agree on definitions of temporal states in the prehospital setting and ways of recognising patients with time-sensitive conditions in the most optimal way. MAIN BODY: There are several articles discussing the identification and management of time-sensitive conditions. In these articles, neither definitions nor terminology have been uniform. There are a number of problems associated with the definition of time-sensitive conditions. For example, intoxication can be minor but also life threatening, depending on the type of poison and dose. Similarly, diseases like stroke and myocardial infarction can differ markedly in terms of severity and the risk of life-threatening complications. Another problem is how to support EMS clinicians in the early recognition of these conditions. It is well known that many of them can present without a deviation from normal in vital signs. It will most probably be impossible to introduce specific decision support tools for every individual time-sensitive condition. However, there may be information in the type and intensity of the symptoms patients present. In future, biochemical markers and machine learning support tools may help to identify patients with time-sensitive conditions and predict mortality at an earlier stage. CONCLUSION: It may be of great value for prehospital clinicians to be able to describe

BACKGROUND: Prehospital care has changed in recent decades. Advanced assessments and decisions are made early in the care chain. Patient assessments form the basis of a decision relating to prehospital treatment and the level of care. This development imposes heavy demands on the ability of emergency medical service (EMS) clinicians properly to assess the patient. EMS clinicians have a number of assessment instruments and triage systems available to support their decisions. Many of these instruments are based on vital signs and can sometimes miss time-sensitive conditions. With this commentary, we would like to start a discussion to agree on definitions of temporal states in the prehospital setting and ways of recognising patients with time-sensitive conditions in the most optimal way. MAIN BODY: There are several articles discussing the identification and management of time-sensitive conditions. In these articles, neither definitions nor terminology have been uniform. There are a number of problems associated with the definition of time-sensitive conditions. For example, intoxication can be minor but also life threatening, depending on the type of poison and dose. Similarly, diseases like stroke and myocardial infarction can differ markedly in terms of severity and the risk of life-threatening complications. Another problem is how to support EMS clinicians in the early recognition of these conditions. It is well known that many of them can present without a deviation from normal in vital signs. It will most probably be impossible to introduce specific decision support tools for every individual time-sensitive condition. However, there may be information in the type and intensity of the symptoms patients present. In future, biochemical markers and machine learning support tools may help to identify patients with time-sensitive conditions and predict mortality at an earlier stage. CONCLUSION: It may be of great value for prehospital clinicians to be able to describe