ObjectivesHydrazine (HZ) and Hydrazine Derivative (HZ-D) exposures pose health risks to people in industrial and aerospace settings. Several recent systematic reviews and case series have highlighted common clinical presentations and management strategies. Given the low frequency at which HZ and HZ-D exposures occur, a strong evidence base on which to develop an evidence-based guideline does not exist at this time. Therefore, the aim of this project is to establish a consensus guideline for prehospital care of patients with exposures to HZ and HZ-Ds.MethodsA modified Delphi technique was used to develop clinical questions, obtain expert panel opinions, develop initial patient care recommendations, and revise the draft into a final consensus guideline. First, individuals (Emergency Medical Services (EMS) physicians and hazardous materials technicians) with experience in management of HZ and HZ-Ds identified relevant clinical questions. An expert panel was then convened to make clinical recommendations. In the first round, the panel voted on clinical care recommendations. These recommendations were drafted into a guideline that expert panel members reviewed. After review, additional unanswered questions were discussed electronically by expert panel members, and electronic votes were cast. Ultimately, patient care recommendations were condensed into a concise, consensus guideline.ResultsEight clinical questions regarding treatment of patients with HZ and HZ-D exposures were identified. These questions were reviewed by the expert panel which included 2 representatives from: aerospace medicine, military medicine, EMS medicine, paramedicine, pharmacy, and toxicology. Draft patient care recommendations generated three additional questions which were discussed electronically and voted on. These recommendations were then formatted into a guideline outlining recommendations for care prior to decontamination, during decontamination, and after decontamination.ConclusionsThe consensus guideline for clinical care of patients with exposure to HZ/HZ-Ds is as follows: Prior to decontamination, use appropriate personal protective equipment, and when necessary, support ventilation using a bag-valve-mask and administer midazolam intramuscularly for seizures. After decontamination, provide supplemental oxygen; consider selective advanced airway management when indicated; administer inhaled beta-agonists for wheezing; and, for seizures unresponsive to multiple doses of benzodiazepines that occur during pre-planned, high-hazard activities, such as spacecraft recovery, consider intravenous or intraosseous pyridoxine.

OBJECTIVES:The Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) framework is a validated process that is used to identify individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) and then encourage them to engage in and facilitate entry into treatment. It is not known how well SBIRT can be incorporated into prehospital practice and what barriers to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) implementation of an SBIRT program might arise. The aim of this project was to implement a pilot EMS based SBIRT program. Then, after program implementation, to identify barriers to the prehospital use of SBIRT programs. METHODS:This was a mixed methodology study utilizing a retrospective review of program quality improvement data and structured interviews to collect both objective and subjective data on the prehospital SBIRT implementation. Eight EMS agencies participated in the SBIRT pilot program. Paramedics and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) were trained to use the SBIRT process then asked to use the SBIRT tool during their day to day activities. The screening tools utilized were the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST) and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Referral tools were tailored to the unique SUD treatment programs available in each community. The pilot program was run for 6 months after which time structured focus group meetings were conducted to identify barriers to broader SBIRT program utilization. RESULTS:In total, 28 EMS clinicians from 8 agencies attended the train the trainer SBIRT education session. None of the agencies subsequently implemented the routine use of the SBIRT model or DAST/AUDIT tools. The agencies reported significant barriers to implementation on EMS calls, including short transport times, current drug and/or alcohol intoxication, and hesitation of patients to participate. Community paramedicine clinicians, who typically spend more time with patients, found the tools more useful but found limited opportunities to implement them. Common cited themes were the lack of local community-based organizations and frequent personnel turnover within local agencies. CONCLUSIONS:Although EMS clinicians found the SBIRT training to be useful, they did not incorporate the use of the SBIRT model into their prehospital patient care, citing too many barriers to its implementation and use.

ObjectivesBuprenorphine is becoming a key component of prehospital management of opioid use disorder. It is unclear how many prehospital patients might be eligible for buprenorphine induction, as traditional induction requires that patients first have some degree of opioid withdrawal. The primary aim of this study was to quantify how many patients developed precipitated withdrawal after receiving prehospital naloxone for suspected overdose, as they could be candidates for prehospital buprenorphine. The secondary objective was to identify associated factors contributing to precipitated withdrawal, including dose of naloxone administered, and identify rate of subsequent transport.MethodsA retrospective cohort study reviewing electronic patient care reports (ePCRs) from March 2019 to April 2023 in a single Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system was performed. Cases were included if naloxone was administered during the prehospital interval and excluded if the patient was in cardiac arrest upon arrival and died on scene. Precipitated opioid withdrawal was defined using reliably available ePCR data points measured by the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale: administration of an antiemetic or sedative, persistent tachycardia, or new tachycardia after naloxone. Descriptive statistics were calculated to quantify the incidence of precipitated withdrawal. Risk ratios were calculated to identify variables associated with outcomes of interest. A subgroup analysis was performed examining patients explicitly diagnosed with an overdose by EMS.ResultsDuring the study period, 4561 individuals were given naloxone, and 2124 (46.2%) met our proxy criteria for precipitated withdrawal. Patients who received multiple doses of naloxone were more likely to meet our precipitated withdrawal definition versus those who received a single dose (RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.12-1.28). Patients who experienced precipitated withdrawal were more likely to accept transportation than those who did not experience withdrawal (RR 1.08 95% CI 1.04-1.12). Persistent tachycardia (80.3%) was the most common criterion met for our definition of precipitated withdrawal.ConclusionsAlmost half of patients who received a dose of prehospital naloxone for suspected overdose met our proxy criteria for precipitated withdrawal. Patients who met our precipitated withdrawal definition were more likely to have received greater doses of naloxone and were more likely to accept transport to an emergency department.

Background: It is well established that prehospital hypoxia dramatically increases mortality in Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Thus, in EMS TBI research, case ascertainment and risk adjustment are highly dependent upon documentation of in-field O 2 saturation (SpO 2 ). Objective: To compare the rate of hypoxia identified by EMS personnel and documented in EMS patient care records (PCR) versus the actual rate of hypoxia recorded by continuous, non-invasive monitoring in TBI. Methods: A subset of major TBI cases (moderate/severe) from 5 EMS agencies reporting monitor data (Philips MRx™) in the EPIC EMS TBI Study (NIH 1R01NS071049) were evaluated (02/13-02/18). All monitor data available for post-hoc review were displayed and accessible to the providers during EMS care. We compared PCR documentation of hypoxia (SpO 2 <90%) to continuous monitor data in TBI patients (nasal canula O 2 , mask, basic or advanced airway). Statistic: exact McNemar’s test, α=0.05. Results: 120 cases were included [med. age 50; IQR (23.8, 68); 65% male. Monitors recorded 44 hypoxic cases (36.7%; 95%CI 28.1, 45.9%). Only 8 (6.7%; 2.9, 12.7%) were documented in the PCR (p<0.0001; Figure). Three machine-detected hypoxia cases had no PCR-documented SpO 2 at all. Conclusions: The difference in PCR-documented and monitor-identified hypoxia was dramatic. The monitor data revealed a five-fold greater incidence of hypoxia than that documented by EMS providers. This may be partially explained by the continuous nature of pulse oximetry in the face of ongoing care responsibilities and scene distractions. The field environment may cause providers to miss low readings as they fluctuate moment-by-moment. These findings have major clinical implications. While some of the discrepancy between PCR reporting and monitor data might simply be failure to document hypoxia, the much more concerning implication is that many cases might be unrecognized and untreated. Furthermore, these findings have important implications for case ascertainment, confounding, and risk-adjustment in EMS TBI research. Whenever possible, quality improvement and research projects should utilize continuous non-invasive monitor data to identify and evaluate hypoxic patients in the setting of TBI. These findings may also have implications for identifying hypoxia in EMS patients with other critical conditions.

Introduction:Historically, prehospital care of trauma patients has included nearly universal use of acervical collar (C-collar) and long spine board (LSB). Due to recent evidence demonstrating harm inusing LSBs, implementation of new spinal motion restriction (SMR) protocols in the prehospital settingshould reduce LSB use, even among patients with spinal cord injury. Our goal in this study was toevaluate the rates of and reasons for LSB use in high-risk patients-those with hospital-diagnosed spinalcord injury (SCI)-after statewide implementation of SMR protocols. Methods:Applying data from a state emergency medical services (EMS) registry to a state hospitaldischarge database, we identified cases in which a participating EMS agency provided care for a patientlater diagnosed in the hospital with a SCI. Cases were then retrospectively reviewed to determine theprevalence of both LSB and C-collar use before and after agency adoption of a SMR protocol. Wereviewed cases with LSB use after SMR protocol implementation to determine the motivations drivingcontinued LSB use. We used simple descriptive statistics, odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidenceintervals (CI) to describe the results. Results:We identified 52 EMS agencies in the state of Arizona with 417,979 encounters. There were225 patients with SCI, of whom 74 were excluded. The LSBs were used in 52 pre-SMR (81%) and 49post-SMR (56%) cases. The odds of LSB use after SMR protocol implementation was 70% lower than ithad been before implementation (OR 0.297, 95% CI 0.139-0.643;P=0.002). Use of a C-collar afterSMR implementation was not significantly changed (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.23-1.143;P=0.10). In the 49cases of LSB use after agency SMR implementation, the most common reasons for LSB placement wereease of lifting (63%), placement by non-transporting agency (18%), and extrication (16.3%). Highsuspicion of SCI was determined as the primary or secondary reason for not removing LSB afterassessment in 63% of those with LSB placement, followed by multiple transfers required (20%), andcritical illness (10%). Conclusion:Implementation of selective spinal motion restriction protocols was associated with astatistically significant decrease in the utilization of long spine boards among prehospital patients withacute traumatic spinal cord injury. [West J Emerg Med. 2024;25(5)793-799.]Volume 25, No. 5: September 2024Western JournalofEmergency Medicine793ORIGINALRESEARCH

Background:Telemedicine remains an underused tool in rural emergency medical servces (EMS) systems. Rural emergency medical technicians (EMT) and paramedics cite concerns that telemedicine could increase Advanced Life Support (ALS) transports, extend on-scene times, and face challenges related to connectivity as barriers to implementation. Our aim in this project was to implement a telemedicine system in a rural EMS setting and assess the impact of telemedicine on EMS management of patients with chest pain while evaluating some of the perceived barriers. Methods:This study was a mixed-methods, retrospective review of quality assurance data collected prior to and after implementation of a telemedicine program targeting patients with chest pain. We compared quantitative data from the 12-month pre-implementation phase to data from 15 months post-implementation. Patients were included if they had a chief complaint of chest pain or a 12-lead electrocardiogram had been obtained. The primary outcome was the rate of ALS transport before and after program implementation. Secondary outcomes included EMS call response times and EMS agency performance on quality improvement benchmarks. Qualitative data were also collected after each telemedicine encounter to evaluate paramedic/EMT and EMS physician perception of call quality. Results:The telemedicine pilot project was implemented in September 2020. Overall, there were 58 successful encounters. For this analysis, we included 38 patients in both the pre-implementation period (September 9, 2019-September 10, 2020) and the post-implementation period (September 11, 2020-December 5, 2021). Among this population, the ALS transport rate was 42% before and 45% after implementation (odds ratio 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.45-2.76). The EMS median out-of-service times were 47 minutes before, and 33 minutes after (P = 0.07). Overall, 64% of paramedics/EMTs and 89% of EMS physicians rated the telemedicine call quality as "good." Conclusion:In this rural EMS system, a telehealth platform was successfully used to connect paramedics/EMTs to board-certified EMS physicians over a 15-month period. Telemedicine use did not alter rates of ALS transports and did not increase on-scene time. The majority of paramedics/EMTs and EMS physicians rated the quality of the telemedicine connection as "good."

Importance The Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care (EPIC) study demonstrated improved survival in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) following implementation of the prehospital treatment guidelines. The impact of implementing these guidelines in the subgroup of patients who received positive pressure ventilation (PPV) is unknown. Objective To evaluate the association of implementation of prehospital TBI evidence-based guidelines with survival among patients with prehospital PPV. Design, Setting, and Participants The EPIC study was a multisystem, intention-to-treat study using a before/after controlled design. Evidence-based guidelines were implemented by emergency medical service agencies across Arizona. This subanalysis was planned a priori and included participants who received prehospital PPV. Outcomes were compared between the preimplementation and postimplementation cohorts using logistic regression, stratified by predetermined TBI severity categories (moderate, severe, or critical). Data were collected from January 2007 to June 2017, and data were analyzed from January to February 2023. Exposure Implementation of the evidence-based guidelines for the prehospital care of patient with TBI. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, and the secondary outcome was survival to admission. Results Among the 21 852 participants in the main study, 5022 received prehospital PPV (preimplementation, 3531 participants; postimplementation, 1491 participants). Of 5022 included participants, 3720 (74.1%) were male, and the median (IQR) age was 36 (22-54) years. Across all severities combined, survival to admission improved (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28-1.97), while survival to discharge did not (aOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.13). Within the cohort with severe TBI but not in the moderate or critical subgroups, survival to hospital admission increased (aOR, 6.44; 95% CI, 2.39-22.00), as did survival to discharge (aOR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.96-6.34). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with severe TBI who received active airway interventions in the field, guideline implementation was independently associated with improved survival to hospital admission and discharge. This was true whether they received basic airway interventions or advanced airways. These findings support the current guideline recommendations for aggressive prevention/correction of hypoxia and hyperventilation in patients with severe TBI, regardless of which airway type is used.

Background: The EMS traumatic brain injury (TBI) guidelines recommend limiting intubation (ETI) to patients with profoundly-depressed level of consciousness (LOC) and who cannot protect their airway or adequately ventilate with basic maneuvers. Thus, many major TBIs are managed without ETI in the field. Monitoring ETCO2 via nasal sensors (NC-CO2) in non-ETI patients may provide valuable information about ventilatory status and trends. However, EMS NC-CO2 remains unstudied. Objective: To evaluate the association between LOC and NC-CO2 in non-intubated TBI. Methods: Cases from 7 EMS agencies reporting continuous monitor data (Philips MRx™) in the EPIC TBI Study (NIH 1R01NS071049) were evaluated (4/13-4/18). Comparisons in patient-level mean, median, lowest and highest NC-CO2 levels were made across GCS categories using clinically meaningful thresholds: <15, <12, <9, 3. Results: Included: 177 cases [median age: 52 (range: 9-94), 66% male]. Overall, while not statistically significant, NC-CO2 tended to be lower in patients with lower GCS (Table). In addition, minimum NC-CO2 was significantly lower (p=0.01) in patients with compromised LOC (Table). O2 management (Hi-flow/Lo-flow/No O2) was documented in 176 patients (99.4%). Among the 107 patients with all GCS = 15, 44 (41%) had Hi-flow administered compared to 47/69 (68%) with any GCS <15 (p=0.0008). Conclusion: The utility of prehospital capnography in non-intubated patients is unknown. In this study, NC-CO2 tended to be lower in TBI patients with lower GCS. Whether this reflects physiological/respiratory differences with changes in LOC, or variations in methods of managing oxygenation is unclear. These intriguing new findings require future study to determine if NC-CO2 is directly reflective of LOC-related ventilatory patterns. Furthermore, studies are needed to evaluate whether NC-CO2 monitoring has clinical utility as a non-invasive adjunct to care in spontaneously-breathing, non-ETI patients.

Introduction Medication automatic dispensing systems (ADS) have been implemented in many settings, including fire-based EMS stations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of in-station ADSs on controlled substance administration rates and EMS response intervals. Methods This study was a retrospective review of data from a single fire-based EMS agency. Medication administration rates and EMS response intervals were compared before ADS implementation (P1; 6/1/15 to 5/31/16) and after ADS implementation (P3; 6/1/17-5/31/19). Cases with missing data and during a one-year implementation period were excluded. Results 4045 cases were identified in P1 and 8168 in P3. The odds of morphine or versed administration increased following ADS implementation: OR = 1.77 (95% CI: 1.53, 2.03) and OR = 1.53 (95%CI: 1.18, 2.00) respectively. There were statistically, but likely not operationally significant increases in median response interval and transport interval from P1 to P3 of 14 seconds, (p < 0.001) and 39 seconds (p < 0.001) respectively. Time at hospital for all calls decreased by more than 11 minutes for all transports, from a median of 34 minutes (IQR; 23.7, 45.5) to 22.7 minutes (IQR:18.5, 27.6) in P3, p < 0.001 and by 27.9 minutes for calls in which a controlled substance was given: P1 = 50.6 minutes (IQR: 34.6, 63.2), P3 = 22.7 minutes (IQR: 18.3, 27.4), p < 0.001. Conclusion In this system, medication ADS implementation was associated with an increase in the rates of controlled substance administration and a decrease in the time units were at hospitals.

Implementation of the Guidelines - How do we put the new ERC Guidelines into practice? On 16 and 17 June, we are organising our first-ever hybrid congress. You will be able to join us live at the beautiful conference venue in Antwerp, Belgium and present your Poster. We are happy to welcome you to Resuscitation 2022!

Background: The advent of highly sensitive End-Tidal CO2 (ETCO2) sensors allows effective monitoring of intubated patients in EMS. Previous work has explored the use of ETCO2 monitoring in non-intubated patients with sensors placed in the nares. However, little is known about the effect of passive O2 delivery [nasal cannula (NC) or high-flow, non-rebreather mask (NRB)] on ETCO2 measurement. Objective: To compare ETCO2 measurements in non-intubated Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) patients receiving O2 via NC vs. NRB in the field. Methods: A subset of cases from the EPIC EMS TBI Study (NIH-1R01NS071049) were evaluated (4/13-4/18). Non-intubated cases from 5 EMS agencies providing monitor data, including continuous ETCO2. Start and end segments were excluded to remove artifact from initiation (“ramp-up”) or termination of monitoring. Statistics: Wilcoxon rank-sum test, two-sample t-test, and Chi-squared test were used as appropriate. Linear regression compared continuous variables in adjusted analyses (α = 0.05). Results: Included were 151 cases [median age: 52 (range: 9-91; 66% male)]. Of those, 62 (41%) received NCO2 and 89 (59%) via NRB. Patient-level mean ETCO2 was slightly lower in the NC group (mean = 26.9 mmHg; SD 6.7) compared to NRB (mean 30.2; SD 8.1; p=0.007). Differences in the mean were: Unadjusted: 3.3 (95% CI 0.9-5.7); Adjusted 2.7 (0.2-5.2). There were no significant differences in means of the patient-level lowest or highest recorded values. Conclusion: While there was a statistically lower ETCO2 in the NC versus NRB-oxygenated patients, it was around 3 mmHg and, thus, not clinically significant. This is surprising since: 1) the O2 flow rates and 2) the open-air (NC) versus mask (NRB) delivery methods are so dramatically different. Future study is needed to identify the clinical implications of using noninvasive ETCO2 measurement as a tool for monitoring ventilatory status and changes in non-intubated TBI (and other) patients in emergency settings.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Hypotension has a powerful effect on patient outcome after traumatic brain injury (TBI). The relative impact of hypotension occurring in the field versus during early hospital resuscitation is unknown. We evaluated the association between hypotension and mortality and non-mortality outcomes in four cohorts defined by where the hypotension occurred [neither prehospital nor hospital, prehospital only, hospital only, both prehospital and hospital]. METHODS:Subjects ≥10 years with major TBI were included. Standard statistics were used for unadjusted analyses. We used logistic regression, controlling for significant confounders, to determine the adjusted odds (aOR) for outcomes in each of the three cohorts. RESULTS:Included were 12,582 subjects (69.8% male; median age 44 (IQR 26-61). Mortality by hypotension status: No hypotension: 9.2% (95%CI: 8.7-9.8%); EMS hypotension only: 27.8% (24.6-31.2%); hospital hypotension only: 45.6% (39.1-52.1%); combined EMS/hospital hypotension 57.6% (50.0-65.0%); (p < 0.0001). The aOR for death reflected the same progression: 1.0 (reference-no hypotension), 1.8 (1.39-2.33), 2.61 (1.73-3.94), and 4.36 (2.78-6.84), respectively. The proportion of subjects having hospital hypotension was 19.0% (16.5-21.7%) in those with EMS hypotension compared to 2.0% (1.8-2.3%) for those without (p < 0.0001). Additionally, the proportion of patients with TC hypotension was increased even with EMS "near hypotension" up to an SBP of 120 mmHg [(aOR 3.78 (2.97, 4.82)]. CONCLUSION:While patients with hypotension in the field or on arrival at the trauma center had markedly increased risk of death compared to those with no hypotension, those with prehospital hypotension that was not resolved before hospital arrival had, by far, the highest odds of death. Furthermore, TBI patients who had prehospital hypotension were five times more likely to arrive hypotensive at the trauma center than those who did not. Finally, even "near-hypotension" in the field was strongly and independently associated the risk of a hypotensive hospital arrival (<90 mmHg). These findings are supportive of the prehospital guidelines that recommend aggressive prevention and treatment of hypotension in major TBI.

Study objective Little is known about the out-of-hospital blood pressure ranges associated with optimal outcomes in traumatic brain injuries (TBI). Our objective was to evaluate the associations between out-of-hospital systolic blood pressure (SBP) and multiple hospital outcomes without assuming any predefined thresholds for hypotension, normotension, or hypertension. Methods This was a preplanned secondary analysis from the Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care (EPIC) TBI study. Among patients (age ≥10 years) with major TBIs (Barell Matrix type 1 and/or Abbreviated Injury Scale-head severity ≥3) and lowest out-of-hospital SBPs of 40 to 299 mmHg, we utilized generalized additive models to summarize the distributions of various outcomes as smoothed functions of SBP, adjusting for important and significant confounders. The subjects who were enrolled in the study phase after the out-of-hospital TBI guideline implementation were used to validate the models developed from the preimplementation cohort. Results Among 12,169 included cases, the mortality model revealed 3 distinct ranges: (1) a monotonically decreasing relationship between SBP and the adjusted probability of death from 40 to 130 mmHg, (2) lowest adjusted mortality from 130 to 180 mmHg, and (3) rapidly increasing mortality above 180 mmHg. A subanalysis of the cohorts with isolated TBIs and multisystem injuries with TBIs revealed SBP mortality patterns that were similar to each other and to that of the main analysis. While the specific SBP ranges varied somewhat for the nonmortality outcomes (hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, discharge to skilled nursing/inpatient rehabilitation, and hospital charges), the patterns were very similar to that of mortality. In each model, validation was confirmed utilizing the postimplementation cohort. Conclusion Optimal adjusted mortality was associated with a surprisingly high SBP range (130 to 180 mmHg). Below this level, there was no point or range of inflection that would indicate a physiologically meaningful threshold for defining hypotension. Nonmortality outcomes showed very similar patterns. These findings highlight how sensitive the injured brain is to compromised perfusion at SBP levels that, heretofore, have been considered adequate or even normal. While the study design does did not allow us to conclude that the currently recommended treatment threshold (<90 mmHg) should be increased, the findings imply that the definition of hypotension in the setting of TBI is too low. Randomized trials evaluating treatment levels significantly higher than 90 mmHg are needed.

Background: Prehospital and early hospital hypoxia powerfully affect traumatic brain injury (TBI) outcomes. However, the correlations between EMS and hospital O2 saturations are unknown. Using the EPIC Study data (NIH-1R01NS071049; DOD-W81XWH-19-C-0058), we assessed correlations between EMS SpO2 and the risk of major TBI patients arriving at the trauma center (TC) with hypoxia (initial ED SpO2<90%). Methods: Subjects meeting EPIC Study criteria, age ≥10 years, and transported directly to the TC were included. Basic statistics were determined by Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. Adjusted odds (aOR) were assessed using logistic regression, controlling for significant confounders. Results: A total of 10,370 subjects were included. Compared to no hypoxia, aORs for death were: EMS, but no TC hypoxia: 2.1 (1.7-2.6), TC, but no EMS hypoxia: 2.5 (1.7-3.8), both EMS/TC hypoxia: 3.2 (2.1-4.8; p<0.0001). Among the 9,243 cases with no EMS hypoxia, only 242 [2.6% (2.3%-3.0%) were hypoxic at TC arrival, compared to 215 of 1127 cases that had EMS hypoxia [19.1% (16.8%, 21.5%); OR: 8.8 (7.2, 10.7); aOR: 4.6 (3.7, 5.7); p<0.0001]. The Figure shows the odds of arriving hypoxic at the TC, based upon the lowest recorded EMS SpO2 (whether hypoxic or not). Conclusion: As expected, hypoxia upon TC arrival was highly correlated with EMS hypoxia (OR 8.8, aOR 4.6). However, it is remarkable that even a single EMS SpO2 below 100% was associated with 2.4 greater odds of TC hypoxia (<90%). Given our recent findings that the optimal odds of survival occurs in patients whose recorded EMS SpO2s were always 100%, these findings argue against the popular concept of preventing “ hyper -oxia” by titrating O2 to maintain SpO2 in the mid/upper 90s. Our results imply that keeping EMS SpO2 as high as possible prevents subsequent hypoxic episodes (i.e., “pre-oxygenation” for unexpected deterioration) and supports maintaining an SpO2 of 100% during the prehospital interval in major TBI.

INTRODUCTION:Little is known about prehospital availability and use of medications to treat patients from hazardous materials (hazmat) medical emergencies. The aim of this study was to identify the availability and frequency of use of medications for patients in hazmat incidents by paramedics with advanced training to care for these patients.METHODS:A prospectively validated survey was distributed to United States paramedics with advanced training in the medical management of patients from hazmat incidents who successfully completed a 16-hour Advanced Hazmat Life Support (AHLS) Provider Course from 1999 to 2017. The survey questioned hazmat medication availability, storage, and frequency of use. Hazmat medications were considered to have been used if administered anytime within the past 5 years. For analyses, medications were grouped into those with hazmat indications only and those with multiple indications.RESULTS:The survey email was opened by 911 course participants and 784 of these completed the survey (86.1 percent). Of these 784 respondents, 279 (35.6 percent) reported carrying dedicated hazmat medication kits, ie, tox-boxes, and 505 (64.4 percent) did not carry tox-boxes. For those medications specifically for hazmat use, hydroxocobalamin was most commonly available, either within or not within a dedicated tox-box. Of the 784 respondents, 313 (39.9 percent) reported carrying hydroxocobalamin and 69 (8.8 percent) reported administering it within the past 5 years. For medications with multiple indications, availability and use varied: for example, of the 784 respondents, albuterol was available to 699 (89.2 percent) and used by 572 (73.0 percent), while calcium gluconate was available to 247 (31.5 percent) and used by 80 (10.2 percent) within the last 5 years.CONCLUSION:Paramedics with advanced training in the medical management of patients in hazmat incidents reported limited availability and use of medications to treat patients in hazmat incidents.

Study objective: We evaluate the effect of implementing the out-of-hospital pediatric traumatic brain injury guidelines on outcomes in children with major traumatic brain injury. Methods: The Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care for Children study is the preplanned secondary analysis of the Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care study, a multisystem, intention-to-treat study using a before-after controlled design. This subanalysis included children younger than 18 years who were transported to Level I trauma centers by participating out-of-hospital agencies between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2015, throughout Arizona. The primary and secondary outcomes were survival to hospital discharge or admission for children with major traumatic brain injury and in 3 subgroups, defined a priori as those with moderate, severe, and critical traumatic brain injury. Outcomes in the preimplementation and postimplementation cohorts were compared with logistic regression, adjusting for risk factors and confounders. Results: There were 2,801 subjects, 2,041 in preimplementation and 760 in postimplementation. The primary analysis (postimplementation versus preimplementation) yielded an adjusted odds ratio of 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.92) for survival to hospital discharge and 2.41 (95% confidence interval 1.17 to 5.21) for survival to hospital admission. In the severe traumatic brain injury cohort (Regional Severity Score-Head 3 or 4), but not the moderate or critical subgroups, survival to discharge significantly improved after guideline implementation (adjusted odds ratio = 8.42; 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 100thorn). The improvement in survival to discharge among patients with severe traumatic brain injury who received positivepressure ventilation did not reach significance (adjusted odds ratio = 9.13; 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 100thorn). Conclusion: Implementation of the pediatric out-of-hospital traumatic brain injury guidelines was not associated with improved survival when the entire spectrum of severity was analyzed as a whole (moderate, severe, and critical). However, both adjusted survival to hospital admission and discharge improved in children with severe traumatic brain injury, indicating a potential severity-based interventional opportunity for guideline effectiveness. These findings support the widespread implementation of the out-of-hospital pediatric traumatic brain injury guidelines.

Background: Little is known about the provision of care by law enforcement (LE) personnel within modern EMS systems. We evaluated LE performance of bystander CPR (BCPR) and associated outcomes in OHCA across Arizona. Methods: A total of 5,654 OHCA cases (1/1/2019-12/31/2019) were evaluated using the Save Hearts in Arizona Registry and Education (SHARE) cardiac arrest registry. Data were abstracted from all EMS patient care records (PCRs). If two parties provided BCPR, the first to give compressions was considered the provider for this analysis. Cases identified as “Stranger” or “Unknown” BCPR were manually evaluated for narrative data to identify BCPR provider when possible. Results: BCPR was provided in 2285 cases [48.8%; (95% CIs 47.4%, 50.3%)] after excluding 850 cases that occurred in healthcare facilities where personnel are duty-bound to provide CPR. LE provided BCPR in 444 patients [19.4% (17.8%, 21.1%)], second only to family/spouse [1143 pts; 50.0% (48.0%, 52.1%)]. Overall, 279 patients survived to hospital discharge [12.2%, (10.9%, 13.6%)]. The Table shows the rates of BCPR in each provider category and the associated rates of survival. Of note is that the rate of bystander AED use was more than four times higher in LE BCPR [6.3% (4.23%, 8.99%)] than family-provided BCPR [1.5% (0.87%, 2.37%; p < 0.0001)], but was still very low. Conclusions: In this statewide study that included more than 130 EMS agencies from frontier to urban settings, LE personnel were frequently involved in the care of OHCA patients within the 911 system response. To our knowledge, this magnitude of provision of BCPR by LE (nearly one in five BCPR cases) has not been reported previously. Furthermore, the consequential rate of LE response to OHCA provides the opportunity to significantly increase AED use. Our findings support the widespread and intentional training of LE in CPR and AED use and has the potential to improve survival in diverse settings.

Background: Studies show that EMS patients are often inadvertently hyperventilated (HV), resulting in hypocapnia. In TBI, HV markedly increases mortality. We evaluated continuous prehospital ETCO2 data in intubated TBI patients. Methods: Analysis of monitor data files (Philips MRx™) from a sample of intubated TBI cases in the EPIC Study (NIH-R01NS071049). Results: Among hundreds of cases, graphical display of continuous ETCO2 from 3 subjects dramatically exemplified commonly-occurring inadvertent HV. Fig 1 shows unrecognized HV lasting nearly 15 min. Fig 2 reveals nearly 14 min of increasing ventilatory rate and progressively worsening hypocapnia. Fig 3 shows nearly 4 min of HV that ends abruptly with clear, sudden recognition and slowing of ventilatory rate that leads to restoration of normal ETCO2 in only a few breaths. The corresponding EMS patient care records (PCR) failed to document the presence, severity, and duration of HV. Conclusions: In a study emphasizing prevention of HV, subsequent evaluation of continuous ETCO2 data revealed many cases of unintentionally rapid manual ventilation and severe hypocapnia, often occurring for long periods. These findings, even in the face of explicit guideline-based training, demonstrate a clear need for routine access to continuous monitor data among intubated patients for quality improvement and in clinical studies. Review of PCRs does not reliably identify mismanagement of ventilation. Furthermore, these findings make it likely that real-time audiovisual feedback technology would improve ventilatory management by alerting providers to unidentified HV that results from the frequent distractions occurring during EMS care.

Interprofessional collaboration is essential to pharmacy practice. One unique aspect of emergency medicine (EM) pharmacy practice is the opportunity to interact with prehospital providers at the bedside and to collaborate on medication-related aspects of prehospital care. This article aims to provide pharmacists an understanding of the complex prehospital care system and our experience collaborating with emergency medical services (EMS) in our respective states and local communities. When the 911 system is called, the call is routed to an emergency dispatcher who gathers basic information, determines the level of acuity, and mobilizes appropriate and available prehospital resources. There are several types of EMS system configurations, with systems composed of combinations of fire-based, private, and “third-service” agencies. Depending on the organization of the tiered system, prehospital providers are dispatched to respond to the call; the team may include EMS providers, firefighters, and police officers.1 There are many types of EMS providers with different specialized training in the prehospital setting, including emergency medical technicians (EMTs) trained in basic life support (BLS); advanced EMTs and paramedics with advanced life support (ALS) training; and other personnel such as specialty care and critical care transport providers, individuals credentialed to perform rapid sequence intubation, flight (helicopter and fixed-wing airplane) paramedics and nurses, and EMS physicians (physicians with an interest in EMS or with EMS fellowship training).2