Outcome of diabetic patients treated in the prehospital arena after a hypoglycaemic episode, and an exploration of treat and release protocols: a review of the literature

Patient and Prehospital Predictors of Hospital Admission for Patients With and Without Histories of Diabetes Treated by Paramedics for Hypoglycemia: A Health Record Review Study

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to describe the characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients treated by paramedics for hypoglycemia, and to determine the predictors of hospital admission for these patients within 72 hours of the initial hypoglycemia event.

METHODS

We performed a health record review of paramedic call reports and emergency department records over a 12-month period. We queried prehospital databases to identify cases, which included all patients ⩾18 years with prehospital glucose readings of <72 mg/dl (<4.0 mmol/L) and excluded terminally ill and cardiac arrest patients. We developed and piloted a standardized data collection tool and obtained consensus on all data definitions before initiation of data extraction by trained investigators. Data analyses included descriptive statistics univariate and logistic regression presented as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).

RESULTS

There were 791 patients with the following characteristics: mean age 56.2, male 52.3%, type 1 diabetes 11.6%, on insulin 43.3%, median initial glucose 54.0 mg/dl (3.0 mmol/L), from home 56.4%. They were treated by advanced care paramedics 80.1%, received intravenous D50 37.8%, intramuscular glucagon 17.8%, oral complex carbs/protein 25.7%, and accepted transport to hospital 70.2%. Among those transported, 134 (24.3%) were initially admitted and four more were admitted within 72 hours. One patient was admitted, discharged, and admitted again within 72 hours. Patients without documented histories of diabetes (aOR 2.35, CI 1.13-4.86), with cardiovascular disease (aOR 1.81, CI 1.10-3.00), on corticosteroids (aOR 4.63, CI 2.15-9.96), on oral hypoglycemic agent(s) (aOR 1.92, CI 1.02-3.62), or those given glucagon (aOR 1.77, CI 1.07-2.93) on scene were more likely to be admitted to hospital, whereas patients on insulin (aOR 0.49, CI 0.27-0.91), able to tolerate complex oral carbs/protein (aOR 0.22, CI 0.10-0.48), with final GCS scores of 15 (aOR 0.53, CI 0.34-0.83), or from public locations (aOR 0.40, CI 0.21-0.75) were less likely to be admitted.

CONCLUSIONS

There are several patient and prehospital management characteristics which, in combination, could be incorporated into a safe clinical decision tool for patients who present with hypoglycemia.

Characteristics of Patients with Recurrent Emergency Medical Services Utilization for Symptomatic Hypoglycemia in an Urban Setting

Background: Symptomatic hypoglycemia frequently results in utilization of emergency medical services (EMS). Understanding the characteristics of hypoglycemic patients with high EMS utilization may help providers optimize resource allocation. Objective: To describe characteristics of patients utilizing EMS for hypoglycemia and to determine if any factors identifiable in the prehospital setting are associated with recurrent EMS utilization. Methods: A retrospective chart review of prehospital care records from an urban EMS system was performed. Patients who received oral glucose, parenteral glucose, or intramuscular glucagon for hypoglycemia over a one-year period were identified. Extracted information included demographics, prehospital treatment, disposition, zip code median income, and the number of subsequent EMS utilizations within 365 days. Results: We identified 549 subjects, mean age 55 years (range 5 to 104, 65% male). The mean glucose level for all patients was 44 mg/dl with standard deviation (SD) of 15. In total, 69% of patients received oral glucose, 26% received parenteral glucose, 3% received glucagon, and 2% received more than one medication. At the index visit, 81% of patients accepted hospital transportation. The rate of recurrent EMS utilization for hypoglycemia was 10%, and 3% of patients had 3 or more repeat utilizations within 365 days. The mean finger-stick glucose at index visit was 39 mg/dL (SD 15) for patients with multiple EMS utilizations and 44 mg/dL (SD 14) for those with one EMS visit (P = 0.006). Repeat utilizers were more likely to have received medications other than oral glucose at index visit, 51% vs. 28% (P < 0.001). Age, gender, median zip code income, and disposition were not associated with recurrent EMS utilization. The overall annual rate of hypoglycemia requiring EMS treatment per estimated diabetic population was 0.84%. Conclusion: A low proportion of patients utilizing EMS for hypoglycemia had subsequent EMS visits within 365 days. Those who did had lower initial blood glucose at the index visit and were more likely to have received prehospital treatment with medications other than oral glucose. Demographic characteristics did not yield any patterns predictive of repeat utilization. Refusing transport to the hospital after EMS treatment for hypoglycemia did not increase the risk of recurrent utilization.

Characteristics, Prehospital Management, and Outcomes in Patients Assessed for Hypoglycemia: Repeat Access to Prehospital or Emergency Care

BACKGROUND

In Ontario, Canada, there currently are no prehospital treat-and-release protocols and the safety of this practice remains unclear. We sought to describe the characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with hypoglycemia treated by paramedics, and to determine the predictors of repeat access to prehospital or emergency department (ED) care within 72 hours of initial paramedic assessment.

METHODS

We performed a health record review of paramedic call reports and ED records over a 12-month period. We queried prehospital databases to identify cases, which included all adult patients (≥ 18 years) with a prehospital glucose reading of <72mg/dl (4.0mmol/L) and excluded terminally ill and cardiac arrest patients. We developed and piloted a standardized data collection tool and obtained consensus on all data definitions before initiation of data extraction by trained investigators. Data analyses include descriptive statistics with standard deviations, Chi-square, t-tests, and logistic regression with adjusted odds ratios (AdjOR).

RESULTS

There were 791 patients with the following characteristics: mean age 56.2, male 52.3%, known diabetic 61.6%, on insulin 46.1%, mean initial glucose 50.0 dl/mg (2.8 mmol/L), from home 56.3%. They were treated by an Advanced Care Paramedic 80.1%, received IV D50W 38.0%, IM glucagon 18.3%, PO complex carbs 26.6%, and accepted transport to hospital 69.4%. Of those transported, 134/556 (24.3%) were admitted and 9 (1.6%) died in the ED. Overall, 43 patients (5.4%) had repeat access to prehospital/ED care, among those, 8 (18.6%) were related to hypoglycemia. Patients on insulin were less likely to have repeat access to prehospital/ED care (AdjOR 0.4; 95%CI 0.2-0.9). This was not impacted by initial (or refusal of) transport (AdjOR 1.1; 95%CI 0.5-2.4).

CONCLUSION

Although risk of repeat access to prehospital/ED care for patients with hypoglycemia exists, it was less common among patients taking insulin and was not predicted by an initial refusal of transport.

Paramedic Checklists do not Accurately Identify Post-ictal or Hypoglycaemic Patients Suitable for Discharge at the Scene

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy and safety of two pre-defined checklists to identify prehospital post-ictal or hypoglycemic patients who could be discharged at the scene.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of lower acuity, adult patients attended by paramedics in 2013, and who were either post-ictal or hypoglycemic, was conducted. Two self-care pathway assessment checklists (one each for post-ictal and hypoglycemia) designed as clinical decision tools for paramedics to identify patients suitable for discharge at the scene were used. The intention of the checklists was to provide paramedics with justification to not transport a patient if all checklist criteria were met. Actual patient destination (emergency department [ED] or discharge at the scene) and subsequent events (eg, ambulance requests) were compared between patients who did and did not fulfill the checklists. The performance of the checklists against the destination determined by paramedics was also assessed.

RESULTS

Totals of 629 post-ictal and 609 hypoglycemic patients were identified. Of these, 91 (14.5%) and 37 (6.1%) patients fulfilled the respective checklist. Among those who fulfilled the checklist, 25 (27.5%) post-ictal and 18 (48.6%) hypoglycemic patients were discharged at the scene, and 21 (23.1%) and seven (18.9%) were admitted to hospital after ED assessment. Amongst post-ictal patients, those fulfilling the checklist had more subsequent ambulance requests (P=.01) and ED attendances with seizure-related conditions (P=.04) within three days than those who did not. Amongst hypoglycemic patients, there were no significant differences in subsequent events between those who did and did not meet the criteria. Paramedics discharged five times more hypoglycemic patients at the scene than the checklist predicted with no significant differences in the rate of subsequent events. Four deaths (0.66%) occurred within seven days in the hypoglycemic cohort, and none of them were attributed directly to hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

The checklists did not accurately identify patients suitable for discharge at the scene within the Emergency Medical Service. Patients who fulfilled the post-ictal checklist made more subsequent health care service requests within three days than those who did not. Both checklists showed similar occurrence of subsequent events to paramedics' decision, but the hypoglycemia checklist identified fewer patients who could be discharged at the scene than paramedics actually discharged. Reliance on these checklists may increase transportations to ED and delay initiation of appropriate treatment at a hospital. Tohira H , Fatovich D , Williams TA , Bremner A , Arendts G , Rogers IR , Celenza A , Mountain D , Cameron P , Sprivulis P , Ahern T , Finn J . Paramedic checklists do not accurately identify post-ictal or hypoglycaemic patients suitable for discharge at the scene. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(3):282-293.

A prehospital treat-and-release protocol for supraventricular tachycardia

Objective

Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) is a common dysrhythmia treated in the prehospital setting. Emergency medical service (EMS) agencies typically require patients treated for SVT to be transported to the hospital. This retrospective cohort study evaluated the impact, paramedic adherence, and patient re-presentation rates of a treat-and-release (T+R) protocol for uncomplicated SVT.

Methods

Data were linked from the Alberta Health Services EMS electronic patient care record (EPCR) database for the City of Calgary to the Regional Emergency Department Information System (REDIS). All SVT patients treated by EMS between September 1, 2010, and September 30, 2012, were identified. Databases were queried to identify re-presentations to EMS or an emergency department (ED) within 72 hours of T+R.

Results

There were 229 confirmed SVT patient encounters, including 75 T+R events. Of these 75 T+R events, 10 (13%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [7.4, 23]) led to an EMS re-presentation within 72 hours, and 4 (5%, 95% CI [2.1, 13]) led to an ED. All re-presentations were attributed to a single individual. After excluding 15 records that were incomplete due to limitations in the EPCR platform, 43 of 60 (72%) T+R encounters met all protocol criteria for T+R.

Conclusion

The T+R protocol evaluated in this study applied to a significant proportion of patients presenting to EMS with SVT. Risk of re-presentation following T+R was low, and paramedic protocol adherence was reasonable. T+R appears to be a viable option for uncomplicated SVT in the prehospital setting.

Omitting Follow-up Food After Initial Hypoglycaemic Treatment Does not Increase the Likelihood of Repeat Hypoglycaemia

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines for self-treatment of hypoglycaemia specify initial treatment with quick-acting carbohydrate until blood glucose levels normalize and then follow-up with longer-acting carbohydrate. The few studies investigating follow-up show 29-57% omission or undertreatment with follow-up carbohydrate but do not investigate the association of this with repeat hypoglycaemia. This study aimed to develop, validate and administer a questionnaire to delineate this association. The timeframe targeted was 2 h post primary hypoglycaemic event (PPHE), the time influenced by long-acting carbohydrate.

METHODS

A questionnaire was generated, test-retest reliability assessed, and it was piloted on convenience samples from the target population. The final version was administered to all insulin-treated individuals attending an outpatient diabetes clinic over 4 weeks (169).

RESULTS

Questionnaire development: readability (69.6-standard/easy), test-retest reliability (Cohen's kappa 0.57-0.91) and return rate (72.2%) were all acceptable. Questionnaire data: questionnaires were returned by 122 participants (63 males/59 females). Method of insulin administration was subcutaneous insulin injections (91%) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) (9%). Repeat hypoglycaemia within 2 h PPHE was reported by 8.2% of respondents. There was no significant difference for age, gender and diabetes duration between those reporting repeat hypoglycaemia and those without. Consumption of follow-up longer-acting carbohydrate was reported by 58.2% of responders with 48% of these using long-acting and 52% medium-acting carbohydrate foods. Method of insulin administration and consumption of follow-up food were significantly associated with repeat hypoglycaemia (P = 0.015, 0.039) but presence or absence of symptoms and duration of action of carbohydrate were not significantly associated (P = 0.103, 0.629). Hierarchical logistic regression analysis showed omission of follow-up food PPHE was not a significant predictor of increased likelihood of repeat hypoglycaemia within 2 h PPHE, irrespective of method of insulin administration (P = 0.085).

CONCLUSION

This study supports guidelines that recommend judicious, rather than routine use of follow-up longer-acting carbohydrate PPHE.

Evaluation of a diabetes referral pathway for the management of hypoglycaemia following emergency contact with the ambulance service to a diabetes specialist nurse team

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of ambulance crew referral of patients treated for acute hypoglycaemia, to a diabetes specialist nurse (DSN) team. Patients were assessed by the ambulance service and did not attend an emergency department.

METHODS

For a 3 month period patients were referred from two areas of West Yorkshire by the ambulance service to specialist diabetes teams. The DSNs contacted the patients within 7 days by telephone and arranged further review if necessary. Satisfaction questionnaires were sent to patients.

RESULTS

Thirty eight patients were referred and all were reviewed by telephone; 30 (79%) also required a clinic review appointment. Warning signs of hypoglycaemia were identified by 21 (55%) patients, but 14 (37%) had none (three had incomplete data). Twelve patients had had a self-treated episode in the previous 6 months; nine patients had had three or more. Fifteen (39%) patients had called an emergency ambulance for similar reasons in the previous 6 months (27 "999" calls). Twenty patients (53%) had their drug treatment altered at a clinic appointment and 14 (37%) required ongoing review. Twenty six patients returned the satisfaction questionnaire; of these 88% agreed or strongly agreed that they had improved their understanding of hypoglycaemia and 73% felt more able to treat a hypoglycaemic episode in the future. Patient satisfaction with this care pathway was high.

CONCLUSIONS

The ambulance service can coordinate successful referral of patients with episodes of acute hypoglycaemia to a DSN-led service. Patients often required treatment review. They valued this service and felt more confident managing their diabetes.