Tag Archives: EMS

General

The EMS Handoff: Opportunity for Improvement

Leave a comment

Handoffs occur in trauma care all the time. EMS hands the patient off to the trauma team. ED physicians hand off to each other at end of shift. They also hand off patients to the inpatient trauma service. Residents on the trauma service hand off to other residents at the end of their call shift. Attending surgeons hand off to each other as they change service or a call night ends. The same process also occurs with many of the other disciplines involved in patient care as well.

Every one of these handoffs is a potential problem. Our business is incredibly complicated, and given that dozens of details on dozens of patients need to be passed on, the opportunity for error is always present. And the fact that resident work hours are becoming more and more limited increases the need for handoffs and the number of potential errors.

Today, I’ll look at information transfer at the first handoff point, EMS to trauma team. Some literature has suggested that there are 16 specific prehospital data points that affect patient outcome and must be included in the EMS report. How good are we at making sure this happens?

An observational study was carried out at a US Level I trauma center with video recording capabilities in the resuscitation room. Video was reviewed to document the “transmission” part of the EMS report. Trauma chart documentation was also reviewed to see if the “reception” half of the process by the trauma team occurred as well.

A total of 96 handoffs were reviewed over a one year period. The maximum number of elements in the study was 1536 (96 patients x 16 data elements). The total number “transmitted” was 473, but only 329 of those were “received.” This is not quite as bad as it seems, since 483 points were judged as not applicable by the reviewers. However, this left 580 that were applicable but were not mentioned by EMS. Of the 16 key elements, the median number transmitted was 5, with a range of 1-9.

This sounds bad. However, the EMS professionals and the physicians have somewhat different objectives. EMS desperately wants to share what they know about the scene and the patient. The trauma team wants to start the evaluation process using their own eyes and hands. What to do?

Bottom line: EMS to trauma team handoffs are a problem for many hospitals. EMS has a lot of valuable information, and the trauma team wants to keep the patient alive. They are both immersed in their own world, working to do what they think is best for the patient. Unfortunately, they could do better if the just worked together a bit more.

Tomorrow I’ll share a solution to the EMS-trauma team handoff problem.

Related posts:

Reference: Information loss in emergency medical services handover of trauma patients. Prehosp Emerg Care 13:280-285, 2009.

General

Emergency Medical Services Liability Litigation

Leave a comment

We know that in-hospital trauma professionals are at risk for litigation. But what about prehospital providers? Unfortunately, there is painfully little literature for us to go on. In this case, I was only able to dig up a single 20 year old paper to help provide a little guidance. 

A retrospective review was conducted of data from a computerized database (note that I did not say online; this was from the birth of the internet) of court cases filed against EMS agencies nationwide. It specifically looked at ambulance collisions and patient care incidents. 

Here are the factoids: 

  • Only 76 cases were identified over a 6 year period (!!)
  • Collision and patient care suits were divided nearly 50:50
  • In ambulance collisions, the other motorist was likely to sue (78% of cases)
  • With patient care issues, 93% of the plaintiffs were the patient (who were the other 7%??)
  • The most common collision occurred in an intersection, or was a rear-end accident 
  • The most common patient care issues were arrival delay, inadequate assessment, inadequate treatment, patient transport delay, or failure to transport
  • About half named an EMT or paramedic as codefendant
  • 41% of suits were closed without any payment to plaintiff, but there were 5 cases with awards greater than $1M US (and this was in 1994!)

Bottom line: Yes, EMS providers do occasionally get sued. It is probably more likely today than it used to be given the legal climate in the US. Providers need to be familiar with the common reasons for lawsuits involving them, and always practice within their scope and in compliance with protocols and medical direction. Whether specific individual liability insurance is needed is a local and regional thing, and should be negotiated with your particular employer.

Reference: Emergency medical services liability litigation in the United States: 1987 to 1992. Prehosp Disaster Med 9(4):214-220, 1994.

Procedures

Air Embolism From an Intraosseous (IO) Line

Leave a comment

IO lines are a godsend when we are faced with a patient who desperately needs access but has no veins. The tibia is generally easy to locate and the landmarks for insertion are straightforward. They are so easy to insert and use, we sometimes “set it and forget it”, in the words of infomercial guru Ron Popeil.

But complications are possible. The most common is an insertion “miss”, where the fluid then infuses into the knee joint or soft tissues of the leg. Problems can also arise when the tibia is fractured, leading to leakage into the soft tissues. Infection is extremely rare.

This photo shows the inferior vena cava of a patient with bilateral IO line insertions (black bubble at the top of the round IVC).

During transport, one line was inadvertently disconnected and probably entrained some air. There was no adverse clinical effect, but if the problem is not recognized and the line is not closed properly, there could be.

Bottom line: Treat an IO line as carefully as you would a regular IV. You can give anything through it that can be given via a regular IV: crystalloid, blood, drugs. And even air, so be careful!

General

Are We Transporting Our Patients In The Correct Position? Part 2

Leave a comment

[Note to prehospital providers: please comment below or email with your experience using this position.]

In my last post, I discussed the only paper I could find on the lateral trauma position (LTP). It was a survey that was taken 5 years after implementation of this transport position in Norway. Is there anything else out there that may help give us guidance on proper positioning during transport?

Just this month, a paper was published that tries to look at this issue from a different viewpoint. Since we can’t really show that the LTP is good or prove that it is truly safe, can we at least demonstrate that supine positioning might be bad?

 A very diverse group of researchers in Norway performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of everything they could find published on supine positioning and airway patency in unconscious trauma patients, especially when compared to lateral positioning. This was carried out from the beginning of time, or 1959 in this case.

See if you can follow their progress:

  • There weren’t really any good studies using this global search, so they broadened it to include trauma patients with decreased level of consciousness.
  • Oops! There weren’t any studies using this broader definition, either.
  • The authors wanted to use morbidity and mortality as their outcomes. But, there weren’t any good studies for this either so the decided to use indirect outcomes such as hypoxia, hypercapnea, hypoventilation, work of breathing, and a bunch of other stuff.
  • Oops again! There weren’t any studies reporting these indirect outcomes. 
  • But when these two indirect searches were combined, a number of papers (20) were identified that were used for a meta-analysis
  • A number of these papers showed soft results (language like ”indication of”, “small difference”). The only significant results were found in patients with known obstructive sleep apnea.

Bottom line: The use of the lateral trauma position is an intriguing concept, and has been used successfully in Norway for about 10 years. Intuitively, it makes sense, especially in obese patients or those with known obstructive sleep apnea. Unfortunately, this paper approached the questions asked kind of backwards, in my opinion.

I believe that LTP has a place in prehospital care, but that there will be significant barriers to adoption in most countries. In order to overcome these hurdles, clear protocols and positioning instructions will need to be developed, as well as specific indications. And it wouldn’t hurt to do a few good studies along the way. The Norwegians have helped us with the ethics questions, as it is the standard of care in that country. So write your local IRB and get busy!

Related post:

Reference: Is the supine position associated with loss of airway patency in unconscious trauma patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 23:50, July 1, 2015. 

General

Are We Transporting Our Patients In The Correct Position? Part 1

Leave a comment

Here’s a kick in the head, unless you are one of my Norwegian readers.

In the US and many (most) other countries, trauma patients are routinely transported strapped down in the supine position. It’s tradition. It’s easy. It gives prehospital providers pretty good access for whatever they need to do.

But it is right? Some patients, particularly those who have a diminished level of consciousness or severe obstructive sleep apnea, or both, may not do well in that position. In 2005, Norwegian Emergency Medical Services (NEMS) introduced the use of the lateral trauma position (LTP) across the country. Here is how it looks:

Five years later, a group from several hospitals across Norway conducted a survey of all ground and air EMS providers in the country. A few factoids:

  • This one year survey included 202 of 206 ground EMS stations and 23 of 24 air EMS stations. Questionnaire response rate was about 50%
  • Of supervisors at ground EMS units, 75% said that they had implemented LTP
  • 67% of ground units had written policies for use and 73% had provided training
  • Individual ground provider opinions were a bit different. 89% were familiar with LTP, but only 58% actually used it.
  • Training seemed to be the key. Of ground providers given training, 86% were confident in using LTP, but of those not given training, only 58% were.
  • Only 53% of air services used LTP, and only one had a protocol.

Here are the instructions on how to do it:

Bottom line: Interesting concept. Unfortunately there is little (or no) objective data to help us. The main thing available now is a 10 year experience with the lateral trauma position in Norway, and I have not seen any analyses of it. In my next post, I’ll review a meta-analysis published this year that does try to compare LTP vs supine positioning.

Related posts:

Reference: The lateral trauma position: what do we know about it and how do we use it? A cross-sectional survey of all Norwegian emergency medical services. Scand J Trauma 19:45, 2011.