Dispatch accuracy of physician-staffed emergency medical services in trauma care in south-east Norway: a retrospective observational study

Determining the top research priorities in UK prehospital critical care: a modified Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Prehospital critical care is a rapidly evolving field. There is a paucity of evidence relating to its practice, with limited progress in answering those research questions identified over a decade ago. It is vital that evidence gaps are identified and addressed. This study aimed to define the current research priorities in UK prehospital critical care.

METHODS

This modified national Delphi study was coordinated by the Pre-HOspital Trainee Operated research Network and conducted in four rounds between October 2021 and April 2022. Rounds 1 and 2 were conducted online with clinicians involved in prehospital critical care delivery and non-clinical prehospital researchers. Rounds 3 and 4 were completed online by a subject matter expert (SME) panel.

RESULTS

In round 1, 78 participants submitted 394 research questions relating to prehospital critical care delivery in the UK. These were refined and categorised into 192 questions, which were scored for importance in round 2. Fifty questions were discussed and scored by the SME panel in round 3. Round 4 created a ranked top 20 list. The top research priority was 'Which cardiac arrest patients should critical care teams be dispatched to; how do we identify these patients during the emergency call?'. Other priorities included dispatch optimisation, out-of-hospital medical cardiac arrest management, optimising resuscitation in haemorrhagic shock, improving traumatic brain injury outcomes and optimising management of traumatic cardiac arrest.

CONCLUSIONS

This modified Delphi study identified 20 research priorities where efforts should be concentrated to develop collaborative prehospital critical care research within the UK over the next 5 years.

Differences between the dispatch priority assessments of emergency medical dispatchers and emergency medical services: a prospective register-based study in Finland

BACKGROUND

Responsive and efficient emergency medical services (EMS) require accurate telephone triage. In Finland, such services are provided by Emergency Response Centre Agency (ERC Agency). In 2018, a new Finnish computer-assisted emergency dispatch system was introduced: the Emergency Response Integrated Common Authorities (ERICA). After the introduction of ERICA, the appropriateness of EMS dispatch has not been investigated yet. The study´s objective is to determine the consistency between the priority triage of the emergency medical dispatcher (EMD) and the on-scene priority assessment of the EMS, and whether the priority assessment consistency varied among the dispatch categories.

METHODS

This was a prospective register-based study. All EMS dispatches registered in the Tampere University Hospital area from 1 August 2021 to 31 August 2021 were analysed. The EMD's mission priority triaged during the emergency call was compared with the on-scene EMS's assessment of the priority, derived from the pre-set criteria. The test performance levels were measured from the crosstabulation of true or false positive and negative values of the priority assessment. Statistical significance was analysed using the chi-square test and the Kruskal-Wallis H test, and p-values < 0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

Of the 6416 EMS dispatches analysed in this study, 36% (2341) were urgent according to the EMD's dispatch priority, and of these, only 29% (688) were urgent according to the EMS criteria. On the other hand, 64% (4075) of the dispatches were non-urgent according to the EMD's dispatch priority, of which 97% (3949) were non-urgent according to the EMS criteria. Moreover, there were differences between the EMD and EMS priority assessments among the dispatch categories (p < 0.001). The overall efficiency was 72%, sensitivity 85%, specificity 71%, positive predictive value 29%, and negative predictive value 97%.

CONCLUSION

While the EMD recognised the non-urgent dispatches with high consistency with the EMS criteria, most of the EMD's urgent dispatches were not urgent according to the same criteria. This may diminish the availability of the EMS for more urgent missions. Thus, measures are needed to ensure more accurate and therefore, more efficient use of EMS resources in the future.

Differences in time-critical interventions and radiological examinations between adult and older trauma patients: A national register-based study

BACKGROUND

Older trauma patients are reported to receive lower levels of care than younger adults. Differences in clinical management between adult and older trauma patients hold important information about potential trauma system improvement targets. The aim of this study was to compare prehospital and early in-hospital management of adult and older trauma patients, focusing on time-critical interventions and radiological examinations.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the Norwegian Trauma Registry for 2015 through 2018. Trauma patients 16 years or older met by a trauma team and with New Injury Severity Score of 9 or greater were included, dichotomized into age groups 16 years to 64 years and 65 years or older. Prehospital and emergency department clinical management, advanced airway management, chest decompression, and admission radiological examinations was compared between groups applying descriptive statistics and appropriate statistical tests.

RESULTS

There were 9543 patients included, of which 28% (n = 2711) were 65 years or older. Older patients, irrespective of injury severity, were less likely attended by a prehospital doctor/paramedic team (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.71), conveyed by air ambulance (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73), and transported directly to a trauma center (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.94). Time-critical intervention and primary survey radiological examination rates only differed between age groups among patients with New Injury Severity Score of 25 or greater, showing lower rates for older adults (advanced airway management: OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.76; chest decompression: OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.25-0.85; x-ray chest: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39-0.75; x-ray pelvis: OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57-0.84). However, for the patients attended by a doctor/paramedic team, there were no management differences between age groups.

CONCLUSION

Older trauma patients were less likely to receive advanced prehospital care compared with younger adults. Older patients with very severe injuries received fewer time-critical interventions and radiological examinations. Improved dispatch of doctor/paramedic teams to older adults and assessment of the impact the observed differences have on outcome are future research priorities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.