Prognostic significance of emergency department bypass in stable and unstable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Types and effects of feedback for emergency ambulance staff: a systematic mixed studies review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Extensive research has been conducted into the effects of feedback interventions within many areas of healthcare, but prehospital emergency care has been relatively neglected. Exploratory work suggests that enhancing feedback and follow-up to emergency medical service (EMS) staff might provide staff with closure and improve clinical performance. Our aim was to summarise the literature on the types of feedback received by EMS professionals and its effects on the quality and safety of patient care, staff well-being and professional development.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis, including primary research studies of any method published in peer-reviewed journals. Studies were included if they contained information on systematic feedback to emergency ambulance staff regarding their performance. Databases searched from inception were MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL and Web of Science, with searches last updated on 2 August 2022. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data analysis followed a convergent integrated design involving simultaneous narrative synthesis and random effects multilevel meta-analyses.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 3183 articles, with 48 studies meeting inclusion criteria after title/abstract screening and full-text review. Interventions were categorised as audit and feedback (n=31), peer-to-peer feedback (n=3), postevent debriefing (n=2), incident-prompted feedback (n=1), patient outcome feedback (n=1) or a combination thereof (n=4). Feedback was found to have a moderate positive effect on quality of care and professional development with a pooled effect of d=0.50 (95% CI 0.34, 0.67). Feedback to EMS professionals had large effects in improving documentation (d=0.73 (0.00, 1.45)) and protocol adherence (d=0.68 (0.12, 1.24)), as well as small effects in enhancing cardiac arrest performance (d=0.46 (0.06, 0.86)), clinical decision-making (d=0.47 (0.23, 0.72)), ambulance times (d=0.43 (0.12, 0.74)) and survival rates (d=0.22 (0.11, 0.33)). The between-study heterogeneity variance was estimated at σ2=0.32 (95% CI 0.22, 0.50), with an I2 value of 99% (95% CI 98%, 99%), indicating substantial statistical heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

This review demonstrated that the evidence base currently does not support a clear single point estimate of the pooled effect of feedback to EMS staff as a single intervention type due to study heterogeneity. Further research is needed to provide guidance and frameworks supporting better design and evaluation of feedback interventions within EMS.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020162600.

Interhospital Transfer of Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism (PE): Challenges and Opportunities

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The management paradigm for acute PE has evolved in recent years with wider availability of advanced treatment modalities ranging from catheter-directed reperfusion therapies to mechanical circulatory support. This evolution has coincided with the development and implementation of institutional pulmonary embolism response teams (PERT) nationwide and internationally. Because most institutions are not equipped or staffed for advanced PE care, patients often require transfer to centers with more comprehensive resources, including PERT expertise. One of the unmet needs in current PE care is an organized approach to the process of interhospital transfer (IHT) of critically ill PE patients. In this review, we discuss medical optimization and support of patients before and during transfer, transfer checklists, defined roles of emergency medical services, and the roles and responsibilities of referring and receiving centers involved in the IHT of acute PE patients.

[Quality indicators and structural requirements for Cardiac Arrest Centers-Update 2021]

Es handelt sich hierbei um ein Update der im Frühjahr 2017 erstmals beschriebenen Qualitätskriterien und strukturellen Voraussetzungen für Cardiac Arrest Zentren auf Basis der ersten Zertifizierungen und Erfahrungen. Die Kriterien wurden angepasst und konkretisiert und zum Teil zur Umsetzbarkeit im klinischen Alltag neu definiert.

Regional Systems of Care in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is a medical emergency with significant health care delivery challenges to ensure rapid triage and treatment. Several developments over the past decades have led to improved care delivery, decreased time to reperfusion, and decreased mortality. Still, significant challenges remain to further optimize the delivery of care for this patient population.

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on regional STEMI care in Germany

Aims

To assess the impact of the lockdown due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on key quality indicators for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients.

Methods

Data were obtained from 41 hospitals participating in the prospective Feedback Intervention and Treatment Times in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (FITT-STEMI) study, including 15,800 patients treated for acute STEMI from January 2017 to the end of March 2020.

Results

There was a 12.6% decrease in the total number of STEMI patients treated at the peak of the pandemic in March 2020 as compared to the mean number treated in the March months of the preceding years. This was accompanied by a significant difference among the modes of admission to hospitals (p = 0.017) with a particular decline in intra-hospital infarctions and transfer patients from other hospitals, while the proportion of patients transported by emergency medical service (EMS) remained stable. In EMS-transported patients, predefined quality indicators, such as percentages of pre-hospital ECGs (both 97%, 95% CI = − 2.2–2.7, p = 0.846), direct transports from the scene to the catheterization laboratory bypassing the emergency department (68% vs. 66%, 95% CI = − 4.9–7.9, p = 0.641), and contact-to-balloon-times of less than or equal to 90 min (58.3% vs. 57.8%, 95%CI = − 6.2–7.2, p = 0.879) were not significantly altered during the COVID-19 crisis, as was in-hospital mortality (9.2% vs. 8.5%, 95% CI = − 3.2–4.5, p = 0.739).

Conclusions

Clinically important indicators for STEMI management were unaffected at the peak of COVID-19, suggesting that the pre-existing logistic structure in the regional STEMI networks preserved high-quality standards even when challenged by a threatening pandemic.

Clinical trial registration

NCT00794001

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00392-020-01703-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.