Search

Background and objective There is increasing recognition of the importance of prehospital trauma care for older patients, but little systematic research to guide practice. We aimed to review the published evidence on prehospital trauma care for older patients, determine the scope of existing research and identify research gaps in the literature. Methods We undertook a systematic scoping review guided by the Arksey and O’Malley framework and reported in line with the PRISMA-ScR checklist. A systematic search was conducted of Scopus, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane library databases to identify articles published between 2001 and 2021. Study selection criteria were applied independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted, charted and summarised from eligible articles. A data-charting form was then developed to facilitate thematic analysis. Narrative synthesis then involved identifying major themes and subthemes from the data. Results We identified and reviewed 65 studies, and included 25. We identified five categories: ‘field triage’, ‘ageing impacts’, ‘decision-making’, ‘paramedic’ awareness’ and ‘paramedic’s behaviour’. Undertriage and overtriage (sensitivity and specificity) were commonly cited as poorly investigated field-triage subthemes. Ageing-related physiologic changes, comorbidities and polypharmacy were the most widely researched. Inaccurate decision-making and poor early identification of major injuries were identified as potentially influencing patient outcomes. Conclusion This is the first study reviewing the published evidence on prehospital trauma care for older patients and identifying research priorities for future research. Field-triage tools, paramedics’ knowledge about injuries in the older population, and understanding of paramedics’ negative behaviours towards older patients were identified as key research priorities.

Objectives To establish if the use of early computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography improves one year clinical outcomes in patients presenting to the emergency department with acute chest pain and at intermediate risk of acute coronary syndrome and subsequent clinical events.\ud \ud \ud Design Randomised controlled trial.\ud \ud \ud Setting 37 hospitals in the UK.\ud \ud \ud Participants Adults with suspected or a provisional diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome and one or more of previous coronary heart disease, raised levels of cardiac troponin, or abnormal electrocardiogram.\ud \ud \ud Interventions Early CT coronary angiography and standard of care compared with standard of care only.\ud \ud \ud \ud Main outcome measures Primary endpoint was all cause death or subsequent type 1 or 4b myocardial infarction at one year.\ud \ud \ud Results Between 23 March 2015 and 27 June 2019, 1748 participants (mean age 62 years (standard deviation 13), 64% men, mean global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE) score 115 (standard deviation 35)) were randomised to receive early CT coronary angiography (n=877) or standard of care only (n=871). Median time from randomisation to CT coronary angiography was 4.2 (interquartile range 1.6-21.6) hours. The primary endpoint occurred in 51 (5.8%) participants randomised to CT coronary angiography and 53 (6.1%) participants who received standard of care only (adjusted hazard ratio 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.35), P=0.65). Invasive coronary angiography was performed in 474 (54.0%) participants randomised to CT coronary angiography and 530 (60.8%) participants who received standard of care only (adjusted hazard ratio 0.81 (0.72 to 0.92), P=0.001). There were no overall differences in coronary revascularisation, use of drug treatment for acute coronary syndrome, or subsequent preventive treatments between the two groups. Early CT coronary angiography was associated with a slightly longer time in hospital (median increase 0.21 (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.40) days from a median hospital stay of 2.0 to 2.2 days).\ud \ud \ud Conclusions In intermediate risk patients with acute chest pain and suspected acute coronary syndrome, early CT coronary angiography did not alter overall coronary therapeutic interventions or one year clinical outcomes, but reduced rates of invasive angiography while modestly increasing length of hospital stay. These findings do not support the routine use of early CT coronary angiography in intermediate risk patients with acute chest pain and suspected acute coronary syndrome.\ud \ud \ud Trial registration ISRCTN19102565, NCT02284191.

Importance Professional guidelines recommend noninvasive cardiac testing (NIT) within 72 hours of an emergency department (ED) evaluation for suspected acute coronary syndrome. However, there is inexact evidence that this strategy reduces the risk of future death or acute myocardial infarction (MI).\ud \ud \ud \ud Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of early NIT in reducing the risk of death or acute MI within 30 days.\ud \ud \ud \ud Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective, multicenter cohort study within the Kaiser Permanente Southern California integrated health care delivery system compared the effectiveness of early noninvasive cardiac testing vs no testing in patients with chest pain and in whom acute MI was ruled out who presented to an ED from January 2015 to December 2017. Patients were followed up for up to 30 days after emergency department discharge.\ud \ud \ud \ud Exposures Noninvasive cardiac testing performed within 3 days of an ED evaluation for suspected acute coronary syndrome.\ud \ud \ud \ud Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was composite risk of death or acute MI, within 30 days of an ED discharge.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results A total of 79 040 patients were evaluated in this study, of whom 57.7% were female. The mean (SD) age of the cohort was 57 (16) years, and 16 164 patients (21%) had completed early NIT. The absolute risk of death or MI within 30 days was low (

Purpose\ud Epilepsy is associated with costly unplanned health service use. The UK’s National Audits of Seizure Management in Hospital found use was often clinically unnecessary, avoidable and typically led to little benefit for epilepsy management. We systematically identified how services have responded to reduce such use. \ud \ud Methods\ud We invited England’s ambulance services, neuroscience and neurology centres and a random sample of Emergency Departments (EDs) to complete a survey. It asked what innovations they (or services they worked with) had made in the past 5 years or were making, the priority afforded to them, user involvement, what comprised usual practice, and barriers to change.\ud \ud Results\ud 72/87 of invited (82.8%) services responded. EDs ascribed less priority to reducing emergency hospital use for epilepsy and convulsions, than other service types. Overall, 60% of services reported a change(s) and/or were planning one. Neurology/neuroscience sites (93.8%) were most likely to report change; EDs (15.4%) least likely. Eleven types of change were identified; 5 sought to promote proactive epilepsy care and avert the need for emergency care; 3 focused on the care received from emergency services; and 3 focused on follow-up care ED attendees received. Most were for those with established, rather than new epilepsy and targeted known limitations to current care provision. \ud \ud Conclusion\ud Reducing emergency hospital use by PWE is a high priority for most health services in England and a number of new services have been developed. However, they have not been consistently implemented and innovation is lacking in some areas of care.

The 2009 influenza A H1N1 pandemic was responsible for considerable global morbidity and mortality. In 2009, several research studies in the UK were rapidly funded and activated for clinical and public health actions. However, some studies were too late for their results to have an early and substantial effect on clinical care, because of the time required to call for research proposals, assess, fund, and set up the projects. In recognition of these inherent delays, a portfolio of projects was funded by the National Institute for Health Research in 2012. These studies have now been set up (ie, with relevant permissions and arrangements made for data collection) and pilot tested where relevant. All studies are now on standby awaiting activation in the event of a pandemic being declared. In this Personal View, we describe the projects that were set up, the challenges of putting these projects into a maintenance-only state, and ongoing activities to maintain readiness for activation, and discuss how to plan research for a range of major incidents.