Search

Objective: Many emergency medical services (EMS) protocols for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) include point-of-care (POC) glucose measurement and administration of dextrose, despite limited...

Pediatric seizures commonly trigger emergency medical services (EMS) activation and account for approximately 5-15% of all pediatric 911-EMS calls. More than 50% of children with active seizure activity do not receive prehospital antiepileptic drugs, potentially because they are not recognized by EMS. The purpose of this study is to evaluate specificity and sensitivity of paramedic identification of pediatric seizures and to describe the characteristics of unrecognized seizures.This is an 18-month prospective cohort study at a single, pediatric emergency department (ED). EMS patients ≤15 years old with a prehospital provider impression of seizure were included. Upon ED arrival, a data collection form, which included the EMS verbal report and patient's clinical status, was completed by the attending emergency physician. The primary outcome was sensitivity and specificity of paramedic identification of active seizure. Secondary outcomes included characteristics of missed seizures, ED interventions, and disposition. Descriptive statistics, sensitivity, and specificity were computed. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared.Surveys were completed for 349 patients (Median 3, IQR = 3.4). Fifty-two of the patients (15%) were actively seizing upon arrival at the ED. Sensitivity was 54% and specificity was 96% for paramedic identification of active seizure. Common features of missed cases were abnormal vital signs (75%), gaze deviation (50%) and clenched jaw (33%). Of these, 37% required intubation and 53% were admitted to the intensive care unit.Paramedics were highly specific, but not sensitive in identifying active seizures on ED arrival. Patients with unrecognized seizures presented most commonly with abnormal vital signs and gaze deviation.

Early recognition and treatment of seizures is essential for optimal patient outcomes. Seizure activity, particularly in young children, can be subtle and often go unrecognized by providers. This case series retrospectively identified 7 cases of pediatric patients (14 years and younger) who presented to the emergency department with active seizure activity that was unrecognized by the prehospital care providers. The presentation of these patients, their clinical signs of seizure, and emergency department disposition are highlighted in this series.

Background Sepsis is a leading cause of death in the hospital for which aggressive treatment is recommended to improve patient outcomes. It is possible that sepsis patients brought in by emergency medical services (EMS) have a unique advantage in the emergency department (ED) which could improve sepsis bundle compliance. Objective To evaluate patient care processes and outcome differences between severe sepsis and septic shock patients in the emergency department who were brought in by EMS compared to non-EMS patients. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of all severe sepsis and septic shock patients who declared in the ED during January 2012 thru December 2014. We compared differences in patient characteristics, patient care processes, sepsis bundle compliance metrics, and outcomes between both groups. Results Of the 1066 patients included in the study, 387 (36.6%) were brought in by EMS and 679 (63.7%) patients arrived via non-EMS transport. In the multivariate regression model, time of triage to sepsis declaration (coeff = −0.406; 95% CI = −0.809, −0.003; p = 0.048) and time of triage to physician (coeff = −0.543; 95% CI = −0.864, −0.221; p = 0.001) was significantly shorter for EMS patients. We found no statistical difference in adjusted individual sepsis compliance metrics, overall bundle compliance, or mortality between both groups. Conclusion EMS transported patients have quicker sepsis declaration times and are seen sooner by ED providers. However, we found no statistical difference in bundle compliance or patient outcomes between walk in patients and EMS transported patients.

Introduction Emergency medical services (EMS) fellowships are growing in significance within the United States prehospital health care system. While fellowships represent a cornerstone of EMS subspecialty education, an individual learner's experiences are limited by local resources and practices. California EMS fellowships have developed an innovative method for expanding fellows' educational experiences outside their immediate programs. The innovative education method Each month, fellows, fellowship directors, and local EMS medical directors from throughout the state participate in a video conference. This meeting is divided into four distinct components: book chapter presentation, board-style question review, call review, and an EMS literature review. Chapter review The two-volume text Emergency Medical Services: Clinical Practice and Systems Oversight has been categorized into 12 modules, one for each month of the fellowship. Every meeting, one fellow prepares a didactic presentation summarizing the highlights from that month's chapters. Question review Fellows each create five multiple-choice questions and answers, based on the section reading. Questions are assessed by the group, both for informational content and for appropriate formatting. After completion, these questions are submitted for future review for the EMS fellowship in-service examination. Call review Based on that month's module topics, a call is chosen and reviewed. Regional protocol and practice differences from different systems are discussed. The online medical oversight provided and the prehospital provider performance are evaluated by the group. Literature review Fellows not assigned to present a call or didactic segment each choose one paper focusing on a subject relevant to the module or call. Strengths of the study design, analysis, outcomes, and relevance to EMS practice are discussed. Outcomes Fellows and experienced EMS attendings are exposed to different protocol and system approaches in an interactive and accessible format. This partnership expands educational opportunities for fellows and promotes collaboration across EMS systems.

The association between ambulation at the scene of a motor vehicle collision (MVC) and spinal injury has never been quantified.To evaluate the association between ambulation and spinal injury in patients involved in a MVC.Prospective analytical-observational cohort study. Inclusion: patients sustaining traumatic injury in a MVC. Exclusion:18 years old, pregnancy.spinal injury defined as injury to the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spinal cord, bones, or ligaments. Secondary outcome: Injury resulting in neurological deficit, need for surgery, or death. A generalized linear model was used to evaluate the association between outcome and predictor variables. Risk ratios [RR] were reported with a point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI). A two-tailed alpha of0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance.There were 704 patients analyzed. Nonambulatory patients were 2.29 times more likely to sustain a spinal injury, compared to ambulatory patients (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.34-3.91). Patients ≥ 65 years of age were 3.27 times more likely to sustain a spinal injury (RR 3.27, 95% CI 1.66-6.45). Patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤ 8 were 4.93 times more likely to sustain a spinal injury (RR 4.93, 95% CI 1.86-13.10).In this prospective analytical-observational study evaluating the association between ambulatory status and spinal injury in patients involved in MVCs, we observed that those patients who were nonambulatory were more than two times as likely to have a spinal injury compared to those patients who were ambulatory at the scene.