Search

Introduction: Emergency clinical research has played an important role in improving outcomes for acutely ill patients. This is due in part to regulatory measures that allow Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) trials. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires sponsor-investigators to engage in community consultation and public disclosure activities prior to initiating an Exception From Informed Consent trial. Various approaches to community consultation and public disclosure have been described and adapted to local contexts and Institutional Review Board (IRB) interpretations. The COVID-19 pandemic has precluded the ability to engage local communities through direct, in-person public venues, requiring research teams to find alternative ways to inform communities about emergency research., Methods: The PreVent and PreVent 2 studies were two Exception From Informed Consent trials of emergency endotracheal intubation, conducted in one geographic location for the PreVent Study and in two geographic locations for the PreVent 2 Study. During the period of the two studies, there was a substantial shift in the methodological approach spanning across the periods before and after the pandemic from telephone, to in-person, to virtual settings., Results: During the 10 years of implementation of Exception From Informed Consent activities for the two PreVent trials, there was overall favorable public support for the concept of Exception From Informed Consent trials and for the importance of emergency clinical research. Community concerns were few and also did not differ much by method of contact. Attendance was higher with the implementation of virtual technology to reach members of the community, and overall feedback was more positive compared with telephone contacts or in-person events. However, the proportion of survey responses received after completion of the remote, live event was substantially lower, with a greater proportion of respondents having higher education levels. This suggests less active engagement after completion of the synchronous activity and potentially higher selection bias among respondents. Importantly, we found that engagement with local community leaders was a key component to develop appropriate plans to connect with the public., Conclusion: The PreVent experience illustrated operational advantages and disadvantages to community consultation conducted primarily by telephone, in-person events, or online activities. Approaches to enhance community acceptance included partnering with community leaders to optimize the communication strategies and trust building with the involvement of Institutional Review Board representatives during community meetings. Researchers might need to pivot from in-person planning to virtual techniques while maintaining the ability to engage with the public with two-way communication approaches. Due to less active engagement, and potential for selection bias in the responders, further research is needed to address the costs and benefits of virtual community consultation and public disclosure activities compared to in-person events., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: The REGAIN (Regional versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence after Hip Fracture) trial found similar ambulation and survival at 60 days with spinal versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Trial outcomes evaluating pain, prescription analgesic use, and patient satisfaction have not yet been reported., Objective: To compare pain, analgesic use, and satisfaction after hip fracture surgery with spinal versus general anesthesia., Design: Preplanned secondary analysis of a pragmatic randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02507505)., Setting: 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals., Participants: Patients aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery., Intervention: Spinal or general anesthesia., Measurements: Pain on postoperative days 1 through 3; 60-, 180-, and 365-day pain and prescription analgesic use; and satisfaction with care., Results: A total of 1600 patients were enrolled. The average age was 78 years, and 77% were women. A total of 73.5% (1050 of 1428) of patients reported severe pain during the first 24 hours after surgery. Worst pain over the first 24 hours after surgery was greater with spinal anesthesia (rated from 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]; mean difference, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.68]). Pain did not differ across groups at other time points. Prescription analgesic use at 60 days occurred in 25% (141 of 563) and 18.8% (108 of 574) of patients assigned to spinal and general anesthesia, respectively (relative risk, 1.33 [CI, 1.06 to 1.65]). Satisfaction was similar across groups., Limitation: Missing outcome data and multiple outcomes assessed., Conclusion: Severe pain is common after hip fracture. Spinal anesthesia was associated with more pain in the first 24 hours after surgery and more prescription analgesic use at 60 days compared with general anesthesia., Primary Funding Source: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute .

Background: Survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with shockable rhythms can be improved with early defibrillation. Although shockable OHCA accounts for only ≈25% of overall arrests, ≈60% of public OHCAs are shockable, offering the possibility of restoring thousands of individuals to full recovery with early defibrillation by bystanders. We sought to determine the association of bystander automated external defibrillator use with survival and functional outcomes in shockable observed public OHCA., Methods: From 2011 to 2015, the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium prospectively collected detailed information on all cardiac arrests at 9 regional centers. The exposures were shock administration by a bystander-applied automated external defibrillator in comparison with initial defibrillation by emergency medical services. The primary outcome measure was discharge with normal or near-normal (favorable) functional status defined as a modified Rankin Score ≤2. Survival to hospital discharge was the secondary outcome measure., Results: Among 49 555 OHCAs, 4115 (8.3%) observed public OHCAs were analyzed, of which 2500 (60.8%) were shockable. A bystander shock was applied in 18.8% of the shockable arrests. Patients shocked by a bystander were significantly more likely to survive to discharge (66.5% versus 43.0%) and be discharged with favorable functional outcome (57.1% versus 32.7%) than patients initially shocked by emergency medical services. After adjusting for known predictors of outcome, the odds ratio associated with a bystander shock was 2.62 (95% confidence interval, 2.07-3.31) for survival to hospital discharge and 2.73 (95% confidence interval, 2.17-3.44) for discharge with favorable functional outcome. The benefit of bystander shock increased progressively as emergency medical services response time became longer., Conclusions: Bystander automated external defibrillator use before emergency medical services arrival in shockable observed public OHCA was associated with better survival and functional outcomes. Continued emphasis on public automated external defibrillator utilization programs may further improve outcomes of OHCA., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Previous research has demonstrated significant relationships between peri-shock pause and survival to discharge from out-of-hospital shockable cardiac arrest (OHCA)., Objective: To determine the impact of peri-shock pause on survival from OHCA during the ROC PRIMED randomized controlled trial., Methods: We included patients in the ROC PRIMED trial who suffered OHCA between June 2007 and November 2009, presented with a shockable rhythm and had CPR process data for at least one shock. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine the association between peri-shock pause duration and survival to hospital discharge., Results: Among 2006 patients studied, the median (IQR) shock pause duration was: pre-shock pause 15s (8, 22); post-shock pause 6s (4, 9); and peri-shock pause 22.0 s (14, 31). After adjusting for Utstein predictors of survival as well as CPR quality measures, the odds of survival to hospital discharge were significantly higher for patients with pre-shock pause <10s (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.09, 2.11) and peri-shock pause <20s (OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.17, 2.85) when compared to patients with pre-shock pause ≥ 20s and peri-shock pause ≥ 40s. Post-shock pause was not significantly associated with survival to hospital discharge. Results for neurologically intact survival (Modified Rankin Score ≤ 3) were similar to our primary outcome., Conclusions: In patients with cardiac arrest presenting in a shockable rhythm during the ROC PRIMED trial, shorter pre- and peri-shock pauses were significantly associated with higher odds of survival. Future cardiopulmonary education and technology should focus on minimizing all peri-shock pauses., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The decision-making processes used for out-of-hospital trauma triage and hospital selection in regionalized trauma systems remain poorly understood. The objective of this study was to assess the process of field triage decision making in an established trauma system., Methods: We used a mixed methods approach, including emergency medical services (EMS) records to quantify triage decisions and reasons for hospital selection in a population-based, injury cohort (2006-2008), plus a focused ethnography to understand EMS cognitive reasoning in making triage decisions. The study included 10 EMS agencies providing service to a four-county regional trauma system with three trauma centers and 13 nontrauma hospitals. For qualitative analyses, we conducted field observation and interviews with 35 EMS field providers and a round table discussion with 40 EMS management personnel to generate an empirical model of out-of-hospital decision making in trauma triage., Results: A total of 64,190 injured patients were evaluated by EMS, of whom 56,444 (88.0%) were transported to acute care hospitals and 9,637 (17.1% of transports) were field trauma activations. For nontrauma activations, patient/family preference and proximity accounted for 78% of destination decisions. EMS provider judgment was cited in 36% of field trauma activations and was the sole criterion in 23% of trauma patients. The empirical model demonstrated that trauma triage is driven primarily by EMS provider "gut feeling" (judgment) and relies heavily on provider experience, mechanism of injury, and early visual cues at the scene., Conclusions: Provider cognitive reasoning for field trauma triage is more heuristic than algorithmic and driven primarily by provider judgment, rather than specific triage criteria.