A T2 Translational Science Modified Delphi Study: Spinal Motion Restriction in a Resource-Scarce Environment

Sudden-Onset Disaster Mass-Casualty Incident Response: A Modified Delphi Study on Triage, Prehospital Life Support, and Processes

The application and provision of prehospital care in disasters and mass-casualty incident response in Europe is currently being explored for opportunities to improve practice. The objective of this translational science study was to align common principles of approach and action and to identify how technology can assist and enhance response. To achieve this objective, the application of a modified Delphi methodology study based on statements derived from key findings of a scoping review was undertaken. This resulted in 18 triage, eight life support and damage control interventions, and 23 process consensus statements. These findings will be utilized in the development of evidence-based prehospital mass-casualty incident response tools and guidelines.

Advancing the scientific study of prehospital mass casualty response through a Translational Science process: the T1 scoping literature review stage

PURPOSE

The European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation funding program awarded the NIGHTINGALE grant to develop a toolkit to support first responders engaged in prehospital (PH) mass casualty incident (MCI) response. To reach the projects' objectives, the NIGHTINGALE consortium used a Translational Science (TS) process. The present work is the first TS stage (T1) aimed to extract data relevant for the subsequent modified Delphi study (T2) statements.

METHODS

The authors were divided into three work groups (WGs) MCI Triage, PH Life Support and Damage Control (PHLSDC), and PH Processes (PHP). Each WG conducted simultaneous literature searches following the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. Relevant data were extracted from the included articles and indexed using pre-identified PH MCI response themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 925 total references to be considered for title and abstract review (MCI Triage 311, PHLSDC 329, PHP 285), then 483 articles for full reference review (MCI Triage 111, PHLSDC 216, PHP 156), and finally 152 articles for the database extraction process (MCI Triage 27, PHLSDC 37, PHP 88). Most frequent subthemes and novel concepts have been identified as a basis for the elaboration of draft statements for the T2 modified Delphi study.

CONCLUSION

The three simultaneous scoping reviews allowed the extraction of relevant PH MCI subthemes and novel concepts that will enable the NIGHTINGALE consortium to create scientifically anchored statements in the T2 modified Delphi study.

Paramedic attitudes towards prehospital spinal care: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

The optimal application of spinal motion restriction (SMR) in the prehospital setting continues to be debated. Few studies have examined how changing guidelines have been received and interpreted by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. This study surveys paramedics' attitudes, observations, and self-reported practices around the treatment of potential spine injuries in the prehospital setting.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey of a North American EMS agency. After development and piloting, the final version of the survey contained four sections covering attitudes towards 1) general practice, 2) specific techniques, 3) assessment protocols, and 4) mechanisms of injury (MOI). Questions used Likert-scale, multiple-choice, yes/no, and free-text responses. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify latent constructs within responses, and factor scores were analyzed by ordinal logistic regression for associations with demographic characteristics (including qualification level, gender, and years of experience). MOI evaluations were assessed for inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' kappa). Inductive qualitative content analysis, following Elo & Kyngäs (2008), was used to examine free-text responses.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty responses were received (36% of staff). Raw results indicated that respondents felt that SMR was seen as less important than in the past, that they were treating fewer patients than previously, and that they follow protocol in most situations. The EFA identified two factors: one (Judging MOIs) captured paramedics' estimation that the presented MOI could potentially cause a spine injury, and another (Treatment Value) reflected respondents' composite view of the effectiveness, importance, and applicability of SMR. Respondents with advanced life support (ALS) qualification were more likely to be skeptical of the value of SMR compared to those at the basic life support (BLS) level (OR: 2.40, 95%CI: 1.21-4.76, p = 0.01). Overall, respondents showed fair agreement in the evaluation of MOIs (k = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.09-0.49). Content analysis identified tension expressed by respondents between SMR-as-directed and SMR-as-applied.

CONCLUSION

Results of this survey show that EMS personnel are skeptical of many elements of SMR but use various strategies to balance protocol adherence with optimizing patient care. While identifying several areas for future research, these findings argue for incorporating provider feedback and judgement into future guideline revision.