Factors which affect the application and implementation of a spinal motion restriction protocol by prehospital providers in a low resource setting: A scoping review

Wilderness Medical Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for Spinal Cord Protection: 2024 Update

The Wilderness Medical Society reconvened an expert panel to update best practice guidelines for spinal cord protection during trauma management. This panel, with membership updated in 2023, was charged with the development of evidence-based guidelines for management of the injured or potentially injured spine in wilderness environments. Recommendations are made regarding several parameters related to spinal cord protection. These recommendations are graded based on the quality of supporting evidence and balance the benefits and risks/burdens for each parameter according to American College of Chest Physicians methodology. Key recommendations include the concept that interventions should be goal-oriented (spinal cord/column protection in the context of overall patient and provider safety) rather than technique-oriented (immobilization). An evidence-based, goal-oriented approach excludes the immobilization of suspected spinal injuries via rigid collars or backboards.

Trends in prehospital cervical collar utilization in trauma patients: Closer, but not there yet

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the change in cervical spine (C-spine) immobilization frequency in trauma patients over time. We hypothesize that the frequency of unnecessary C-spine immobilization has decreased.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of adult trauma patients transported to our American College of Surgeons-verified Level I trauma center from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021, was performed. Emergency medical services documentation was manually reviewed to record prehospital physiology and the application of a prehospital cervical collar (c-collar). C-spine injuries were defined as cervical vertebral fractures and/or spinal cord injuries. Univariate and year-by-year trend analyses were used to assess changes in C-spine injury and immobilization frequency.

RESULTS

Among 2906 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 12% sustained C-spine injuries, while 88% did not. Patients with C-spine injuries were more likely to experience blunt trauma (95% vs. 68%, p < 0.001), were older (46 years vs. 41 years, p < 0.001), and had higher Injury Severity Scores (31 vs. 18, p < 0.001). They also exhibited lower initial systolic blood pressures (108 mm Hg vs. 119 mm Hg, p < 0.001), lower heart rates (92 beats/min vs. 97 beats/min, p < 0.05), and lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores (9 vs. 11, p < 0.001). In blunt trauma, c-collars were applied to 83% of patients with C-spine injuries and 75% without; for penetrating trauma, c-collars were applied to 50% of patients with C-spine injuries and only 8% without. Among penetrating trauma patients with C-spine injury, all patients either arrived quadriplegic or did not require emergent neurosurgical intervention. The proportion of patients receiving a c-collar decreased in both blunt and penetrating traumas from 2014 to 2021 (blunt-82% in 2014 to 68% in 2021; penetrating-24% in 2014 to 6% in 2021).

CONCLUSIONS

Unnecessary C-spine stabilization has decreased from 2014 to 2021. However, c-collars are still being applied to patients who do not need them, both in blunt and in penetrating trauma cases, while not being applied to patients who would benefit from them.

Measuring the Implementation Preferences of Emergency Medical Services Clinicians Using Discrete Choice Experiments

INTRODUCTION

Prehospital research and evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) have grown in recent decades, yet there is still a paucity of prehospital implementation research. While recent studies have revealed EMS agency leadership perspectives on implementation, the important perspectives and opinions of frontline EMS clinicians regarding implementation have yet to be explored in a systematic approach. The objective of this study was to measure the preferences of EMS clinicians for the process of EBG implementation and whether current agency practices align with those preferences.

METHODS

This study was a cross-sectional survey of National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians registrants. Eligible participants were certified paramedics who were actively practicing EMS clinicians. The survey contained discrete choice experiments (DCEs) for three EBG implementation scenarios and questions about rank order preferences for various aspects of the implementation process. For the DCEs, we used multinomial logistic regression to analyze the implementation preference choices of EMS clinicians, and latent class analysis to classify respondents into groups by their preferences.

RESULTS

A total of 183 respondents completed the survey. Respondents had a median age of 39 years, were 74.9% male, 89.6% White, and 93.4% of non-Hispanic ethnicity. For all three DCE scenarios, respondents were significantly more likely to choose options with hospital feedback and individual-level feedback from EMS agencies. Respondents were significantly less likely to choose options with email/online only education, no feedback from hospitals, and no EMS agency feedback to clinicians. In general, respondents' preferences favored classroom-based training over in-person simulation. For all DCE questions, most respondents (66.2%-77.1%) preferred their survey DCE choice to their agency's current implementation practices. In the rank order preferences, most participants selected "knowledge of the underlying evidence behind the change" as the most important component of the process of implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of EMS clinicians' implementation preferences using DCEs, respondents preferred in-person education, feedback on hospital outcomes, and feedback on their individual performance. However, current practice at EMS agencies rarely matched those expressed EMS clinician preferences. Collectively, these results present opportunities for improving EMS implementation from the EMS clinician perspective.