Search

Background: There is limited research on how well the American College of Surgeons/Center for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients assist EMS providers in identifying children who need the resources of a trauma center.Objective: To determine the accuracy of the Physiologic Criteria (Step 1) of the Field Triage Guidelines in identifying injured children who need the resources of a trauma center.Methods: EMS providers who transported injured children 15 years and younger to pediatric trauma centers in 3 mid-sized cities were interviewed regarding patient demographics and the presence or absence of each of the Field Triage Guidelines criteria. Children were considered to have needed a trauma center if they had non-orthopedic surgery within 24 hours, ICU admission, or died. This data was obtained through a structured hospital record review. The over- and under-triage rates and positive likelihood ratios (+LR) were calculated for the overall Physiologic Criteria and each individual criterion.Results: Interviews were conducted for 5,610 pediatric patients; outcome data were available for 5,594 (99.7%): 5% of all patients needed the resources of a trauma center and 19% met the physiologic criteria. Using the physiologic criteria alone, 51% of children who needed a trauma center would have been under-triaged and 18% would have been over-triaged (+LR 2.8, 95% CI 2.4–3.2). Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) < 14 had a +LR of 14.3 (95% CI 11.2–18.3), with EMS not obtaining a GCS in 4% of cases. 54% of those with an EMS GCS < 14 had an initial ED GCS < 14. Abnormal respiratory rate (RR) had a +LR of 2.2 (95% CI 1.8–2.6), with EMS not obtaining a RR in 5% of cases. 41% of those with an abnormal EMS RR had an abnormal initial ED RR. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 90 had a +LR of 3.5 (95% CI 2.5–5.1), with EMS not obtaining a SBP in 20% of cases. SBP was not obtained for 79% of children <1 year, 46% 1–4 years, 7% 5–9 years, and 2% 10–15 years. A total of 19% of those with an EMS SBP < 90 had an initial ED SBP < 90.Conclusions: The Physiologic Criteria are a moderate predictor of trauma center need for children. Missing or inaccurate vital signs may be limiting the predictive value of the Physiologic Criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective. The objective of this project was to determine how investigators conduct clinical trials in the prehospital setting and to suggest how emergency medical services (EMS) systems can develop the capacity to conduct prehospital clinical research. Methods. A representative sample of U.S.-based study sites was selected from all studies registered on clinicaltrials.gov since the year 2000, where prehospital care providers conducted study-related activities in the prehospital setting. The site principal investigator and the research coordinator or EMS liaison were invited to participate in a structured discussion. A single interviewer conducted each discussion following a structured guide that generically asked for barriers and enablers to the sites' research success and then reviewed commonly identified prehospital research barriers. Notes were taken during each discussion and reviewed for common themes. Themes were reviewed by the project team and sent for comment to all participants. Results. Discussions were held with 25 principal investigators, 9 coordinators, and 7 EMS liaisons. A total of 27 communities were represented in the discussions from 22 different states. The communities had a range of research experience from one prehospital trial to multiple trials. Key barriers were funding, ethics approval, data collection, protocol training and compliance, randomizing and blinding interventions, obtaining patient outcomes, adequate study staffing, and partnering with EMS agencies. Conclusion. This project identified many challenges to EMS research, but they were not insurmountable. Not every community can conduct every prehospital study. Communities should engage in studies that align with their values and resources. Investigators need to develop honest relationships where issues can be openly discussed and the community can collaborate on prehospital research. Learning from those who have overcome challenges may be a key to expanding the quality and quantity of EMS research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Circulation Improving Resuscitation Care (CIRC) Trial found equivalent survival in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients who received integrated load-distributing band CPR (iA-CPR) compared to manual CPR (M-CPR). We hypothesized that as chest compression duration increased, iA-CPR provided a survival benefit when compared to M-CPR.Methods: A pre-planned secondary analysis of OHCA of presumed cardiac etiology from the randomized CIRC trial. Chest compressions duration was defined as the total number of minutes spent on compressions during resuscitation and identified from transthoracic impedance and accelerometer data recorded by the EMS defibrillator. Logistic regression was used to model the interaction between treatment and duration of chest compressions and was covariate-adjusted for trial site, patient age, witnessed arrest, and initial shockable rhythm. Primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge.Results: We enrolled 4231 subjects and of those, 2012 iA-CPR and 2002 M-CPR had complete outcome and duration of chest compressions data. While covariate-adjusted odds ratio for survival to hospital discharge was 1.86 in favor of iA-CPR (95% CI 1.16-3.0), there was an interaction between duration and study arm. When this was factored into the multivariate equation, the odds ratio for survival to hospital discharge showed a significant benefit for iA-CPR vs. M-CPR for chest compression duration greater than 16.5 min.Conclusion: After adjusting for compression duration and duration-treatment interaction, iA-CPR showed a significant benefit for survival to hospital discharge vs. M-CPR in patients with OHCA if chest compression duration was longer than 16.5 min. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Limited data exist comparing the performance of computerized neurocognitive tests (CNTs) for assessing sport-related concussion. We evaluated the reliability and validity of three CNTs—ANAM, Axon Sports/Cogstate Sport, and ImPACT—in a common sample. High school and collegiate athletes completed two CNTs each at baseline. Concussed (n=165) and matched non-injured control (n=166) subjects repeated testing within 24 hr and at 8, 15, and 45 days post-injury. Roughly a quarter of each CNT’s indices had stability coefficients (M=198 day interval) over .70. Group differences in performance were mostly moderate to large at 24 hr and small by day 8. The sensitivity of reliable change indices (RCIs) was best at 24 hr (67.8%, 60.3%, and 47.6% with one or more significant RCIs for ImPACT, Axon, and ANAM, respectively) but diminished to near the false positive rates thereafter. Across time, the CNTs’ sensitivities were highest in those athletes who became asymptomatic within 1 day before neurocognitive testing but was similar to the tests’ false positive rates when including athletes who became asymptomatic several days earlier. Test–retest reliability was similar among these three CNTs and below optimal standards for clinical use on many subtests. Analyses of group effect sizes, discrimination, and sensitivity and specificity suggested that the CNTs may add incrementally (beyond symptom scores) to the identification of clinical impairment within 24 hr of injury or within a short time period after symptom resolution but do not add significant value over symptom assessment later. The rapid clinical recovery course from concussion and modest stability probably jointly contribute to limited signal detection capabilities of neurocognitive tests outside a brief post-injury window. (JINS, 2016, 22, 24–37) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on field triage of injured patients is limited by the lack of a widely used criterion standard for defining trauma center need. Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15 has been a commonly used outcome measure in research for determining trauma center need that has never been validated. A multidisciplinary team recently published a consensus-based criterion standard definition of trauma center need, but this measure has not yet been validated. The objective was to determine if the consensus-based criterion standard can be obtained by medical record review and compare patients identified as needing a trauma center by the consensus-based criterion standard vs. ISS >15. A subanalysis of data collected during a 2-year prospective cohort study of 4,528 adult trauma patients transported by EMS to a single trauma center was conducted. These data included ICD-9-CM codes, treatment times, and other patient care data. Presence of the consensus-based criterion standard was determined for each patient. ISS was calculated based on ICD-9-CM codes assigned for billing. The consensus-based criterion standard could be applied to 4,471 (98.7%) cases. ISS could be determined for 4,506 (99.5%) cases. Based on an ISS >15, 8.9% of cases were identified as needing a trauma center. Of those, only 48.2% met the consensus-based criterion standard. Almost all patients that did not meet the consensus-based criterion standard, but had an ISS >15 were diagnosed with chest (rib fractures (100/205 cases)/pneumothorax (57/205 cases), closed head (without surgical intervention 88/205 cases), vertebral (without spinal cord injury 45/205 cases), and/or extremity injuries (39/205 cases). There were 4,053 cases with an ISS <15. 5.0% of those with an ISS <15 met the consensus-based criterion standard with the majority requiring surgery (139/203 cases) or a blood transfusion (60/203 cases). The kappa coefficient of agreement for ISS and the consensus-based criterion standard was 0.43. We determined that the consensus-based criterion standard could be identified through a medical record review. Use of the consensus-based criterion standard for field triage research will more accurately identify injured patients who need the resources of a trauma center when compared to ISS. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the attitudes and opinions of a broad population of EMS providers on enrolling patients in research without consent. A survey was conducted in 2010 of all EMS providers who participated in the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (NREMT) reregistration process, which included half of all registered providers. Each reregistration packet included our optional survey, which had nine 6-point Likert scale questions concerning their opinion of research studies without consent as well as 8 demographic questions. Responses were collapsed to agree and disagree and then analyzed using descriptive statistics with 99% confidence intervals. A total of 65,993 EMS providers received the survey and 23,832 (36%) participated. Most respondents agreed (98.4%, 99%CI: 98.2-98.6) that EMS research is important, but only 30.9% (99%CI: 30.1–31.6) agreed with enrolling patients without their consent when it is important to learn about a new treatment. Only 46.6% (99%Cl: 45.7–47.4) were personally willing to be enrolled in a study without their consent. A majority (68.5% [99%Cl: 67.7–69.3]) of respondents believed that EMS providers should have the individual right to refuse to enroll patients in EMS research. While the majority of respondents agreed that EMS research is important, considerably less agree with enrolling patients without consent and less than half would be willing to be enrolled in a study without their consent. Prior to starting an Exception from Informed Consent (EFIC) study, researchers should discuss with EMS providers their perceptions of enrolling patients without consent and address their concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

We describe the decision-making process used by emergency medical services (EMS) providers in order to understand how 1) injured patients are evaluated in the prehospital setting; 2) field triage criteria are applied in-practice; and 3) selection of a destination hospital is determined. We conducted separate focus groups with advanced and basic life support providers from rural and urban/suburban regions. Four exploratory focus groups were conducted to identify overarching themes and five additional confirmatory focus groups were conducted to verify initial focus group findings and provide additional detail regarding trauma triage decision-making and application of field triage criteria. All focus groups were conducted by a public health researcher with formal training in qualitative research. A standardized question guide was used to facilitate discussion at all focus groups. All focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Responses were coded and categorized into larger domains to describe how EMS providers approach trauma triage and apply the Field Triage Decision Scheme. We conducted 9 focus groups with 50 EMS providers. Participants highlighted that trauma triage is complex and there is often limited time to make destination decisions. Four overarching domains were identified within the context of trauma triage decision-making: 1) initial assessment; 2) importance of speed versus accuracy; 3) usability of current field triage criteria; and 4) consideration of patient and emergency care system-level factors. Field triage is a complex decision-making process which involves consideration of many patient and system-level factors. The decision model presented in this study suggests that EMS providers place significant emphasis on speed of decisions, relying on initial impressions and immediately observable information, rather than precise measurement of vital signs or systematic application of field triage criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]