BACKGROUND & AIMS:Deployment of law enforcement operational canines (OpK9s) risks injuries to the animals. This study's aim was to assess the current status of states' OpK9 (veterinary Emergency Medical Services [VEMS]) laws and care protocols within the United States.METHODS:Cross-sectional standardized review of state laws/regulations and OpK9 VEMS treatment protocols was undertaken. For each state and for the District of Columbia (DC), the presence of OpK9 legislation and/or care protocols was ascertained. Information was obtained through governmental records and from stakeholders (eg, state EMS medical directors and state veterinary boards).The main endpoints were proportions of states with OpK9 laws and/or treatment protocols. Proportions are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Fisher's exact test (P <.05) assessed whether presence of an OpK9 law in a given jurisdiction was associated with presence of an OpK9 care protocol, and whether there was geographic variation (based on United States Census Bureau regions) in presence of OpK9 laws or protocols.RESULTS:Of 51 jurisdictions, 20 (39.2%) had OpK9 legislation and 23 (45.1%) had state-wide protocols for EMS treatment of OpK9s. There was no association (P = .991) between presence of legislation and presence of protocols. There was no association (P = .144) between presence of legislation and region: Northeast 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5%), Midwest 50.0% (95% CI, 21.1-78.9%), South 29.4% (95% CI, 10.3-56.0%), and West 23.1% (95% CI, 5.0-53.8%). There was significant (P = .001) regional variation in presence of state-wide OpK9 treatment protocols: Northeast 100.0% (95% CI, 66.4-100.0%), Midwest 16.7% (95% CI, 2.1-48.4%), South 47.1% (95% CI, 23.0-72.2%), and West 30.8% (95% CI, 9.1-61.4%).CONCLUSION:There is substantial disparity with regard to presence of OpK9 legal and/or clinical guidance. National collaborative guidelines development is advisable to optimize and standardize care of OpK9s. Additional attention should be paid to educational and training programs to best utilize the limited available training budgets.

OBJECTIVE:Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) is widely used for prehospital and interfacility transport, but there is a paucity of HEMS outcomes data from studies using randomized controlled trial designs. In the absence of robust randomized controlled trial evidence, judgments regarding HEMS potential benefit must be informed by observational data. Within the study design set of observational analyses, the natural experiment (NE) is notable for its high potential methodologic quality; NE designs are occasionally denoted "quasi-experimental." The aim of this study is to examine all NE outcomes studies in the HEMS literature and to discern what lessons can be learned from these potentially high-quality observational data. METHODS:HEMS NE studies were identified during the development of a new HEMS Outcomes Assessment Research Database (HOARD). HOARD was constructed using a broad-ranging search of published and gray literature resources (eg, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar) that used variations of the terms "helicopter EMS," "air ambulance," and "air medical transport." Among the 221 studies ultimately included in HOARD, 16 NE publications describing 13 sets of observational data comprising myriad diagnostic groups were identified. Of these 16 HEMS NEs, 4 HEMS NE studies assessing trauma outcomes were used in a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis was also performed of 4 HEMS NE studies. RESULTS:Although the disparity of studies (in terms of both case mix and end points) precluded the generation of a pooled effect estimate of an adjusted mortality benefit of HEMs versus ground emergency medical services, HEMS was found to be associated with outcomes improvement in 8 of the 13 cohorts. CONCLUSION:The weight of the NE evidence supports a conclusion of some form of HEMS-mediated outcomes improvement in a variety of patient types. Meta-analysis of 4 HEMS NE studies assessing trauma outcomes generated a model with acceptable heterogeneity (I2 = 43%, Q test: P = .16), which significantly (P < .01) favored HEMS use with a pooled HEMS survival odd ratio estimate of 1.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.22).

Background and importance Each year, 1.4 million patients attend a UK ED with a head injury. Mild traumatic brain injury affects up to 300/100 000 admitted patients/year and a greater number of non-admitted patients. Identifying those patients with a head injury that have concussion, and of those, which will have a prolonged recovery, is critical for discharge planning. The Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening test (VOMS) has been reported as a useful “sideline tool” to evaluate for sports-related concussion (SRC). VOMS has been assessed for utility primarily for predicting in head-injured, which cases will have concussion, and secondarily in predicting in concussed patients, which will have prolonged recovery. Originally described in 2014, VOMS has not been subject to systematic review or meta-analysis, with regard to its predictive performance for concussion. Objective To assess the state of VOMS evidence for dichotomously classifying concussion status in patients with non-severe head injury Design Systematic review. Setting and participants Studies comprising the review enrolled ambulatory head-injured adults and children, usually from sports-related settings, in Europe or the USA. Exposure VOMS. Outcome measures Presence of concussion, presence of prolonged recovery in concussed patients Main results The review identified 17 studies, characterized by a wide variety of specific approaches to administering and scoring VOMS. While VOMS showed promise as a screening tool for concussion, marked study heterogeneity precluded generation of a pooled effect estimate for VOMS performance. Conclusion VOMS is potentially useful as a concussion screening tool. Available evidence from the SRC arena suggests sensitivity ranging from 58–96%, with specificity 46−92%. Directions for future VOMS research should include evaluation of standardized administration and scoring, potentially of a simpler VOMS (with fewer components), in a general head-injured population. Further analysis of precisely defined VOMS application may be useful to determine the proper place of VOMS screening for the head-injured.

Objective Recent systematic reviews of acute care medicine applications of artificial intelligence (AI) have focused on hospital and general prehospital uses. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the literature on AI use with a focus on applications in helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS). Methods A literature search was performed with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles were grouped by characteristics such as publication year and general subject matter with categoric and temporal trend analyses. Results We identified 21 records focused on the use of AI in HEMS. These applications included both clinical and triage uses and nonclinical uses. The earliest study appeared in 2006, but over one third of the identified studies have been published in 2021 or later. The passage of time has seen an increased likelihood of HEMS AI studies focusing on nonclinical issues; for each year, the likelihood of a nonclinical focus had an odds ratio of 1.3. Conclusion This scoping review provides overview and hypothesis-generating information regarding AI applications specific to HEMS. HEMS AI may be ultimately deployed in nonclinical arenas as much as or more than for clinical decision support. Future studies will inform future decisions as to how AI may improve HEMS systems design, asset deployment, and clinical care.

Introduction: The presence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its associated disease, COVID-19 has had an enormous impact on the operations of the emergency department (ED), particularly the triage area. The aim of the study was to derive and validate a prediction rule that would be applicable to Qatar’s adult ED population to predict COVID-19-positive patients. Methods: This is a retrospective study including adult patients. The data were obtained from the electronic medical records (EMR) of the Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC) for three EDs. Data from the Hamad General Hospital ED were used to derive and internally validate a prediction rule (Q-PREDICT). The Al Wakra Hospital ED and Al Khor Hospital ED data formed an external validation set consisting of the same time frame. The variables in the model included the weekly ED COVID-19-positivity rate and the following patient characteristics: region (nationality), age, acuity, cough, fever, tachypnea, hypoxemia, and hypotension. All statistical analyses were executed with Stata 16.1 (Stata Corp). The study team obtained appropriate institutional approval. Results: The study included 45,663 adult patients who were tested for COVID-19. Out of these, 47% (n = 21461) were COVID-19 positive. The derivation-set model had very good discrimination (c = 0.855, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 0.847–0.861). Cross-validation of the model demonstrated that the validation-set model (c = 0.857, 95% CI 0.849–0.863) retained high discrimination. A high Q-PREDICT score ( ≥ 13) is associated with a nearly 6-fold increase in the likelihood of being COVID-19 positive (likelihood ratio 5.9, 95% CI 5.6–6.2), with a sensitivity of 84.7% (95% CI, 84.0%–85.4%). A low Q-PREDICT ( ≤ 6) is associated with a nearly 20-fold increase in the likelihood of being COVID-19 negative (likelihood ratio 19.3, 95% CI 16.7–22.1), with a specificity of 98.7% (95% CI 98.5%–98.9%). Conclusion: The Q-PREDICT is a simple scoring system based on information readily collected from patients at the front desk of the ED and helps to predict COVID-19 status at triage. The scoring system performed well in the internal and external validation on datasets obtained from the state of Qatar.

Introduction: Along with an increase in opioid deaths, there has been a desire to increase the accessibility of naloxone. However, in the absence of respiratory depression, naloxone is unlikely to be beneficial and may be deleterious if it precipitates withdrawal in individuals with central nervous system (CNS) depression due to non-opioid etiologies. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate how effective prehospital providers were in administering naloxone. Methods: This is a retrospective study of naloxone administration in two large urban Emergency Medical Service (EMS) systems. The proportion of patients who had a respiratory rate of at least 12 breaths per minute at the time of naloxone administration by prehospital providers was determined. Results: During the two-year study period, 2,580 patients who received naloxone by prehospital providers were identified. The median (interquartile range) respiratory rate prior to naloxone administration was 12 (6-16) breaths per minute. Using an a priori respiratory rate of under 12 breaths per minute to define respiratory depression, only 1,232 (47.8%; 95% CI, 50.3%-54.2%) subjects who received naloxone by prehospital providers had respiratory depression. Conclusion: This study showed that EMS providers in Los Angeles County, California (USA) frequently administered naloxone to individuals without respiratory depression.

Background: Hydroxychloroquine (HC) +/- azithromycin (AZ) is widely used for Covid-19. The Qatar Prospective RCT of Expediting Coronavirus Tapering (Q-PROTECT) aimed to assess virologic cure rates of HC +/- AZ in cases of low-acuity Covid-19. Methods: Q-PROTECT employed a prospective, placebo-controlled design with blinded randomization to three parallel arms: placebo, oral HC (600 mg daily for one week), or oral HC plus oral AZ (500 mg day one, 250 mg daily on days two through five). At enrollment, non-hospitalized participants had mild or no symptoms and were within a day of Covid-19 positivity by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). After six days, intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the primary endpoint of virologic cure was assessed using binomial exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and chi(2) testing. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04349592, trial status closed to new participants.) Findings: The study enrolled 456 participants (152 in each of three groups: HC+AZ, HC, placebo) between 13 April and 1 August 2020. HC+AZ, HC, and placebo groups had 6 (3.9%), 7 (4.6%), and 9 (5.9%) participants go off study medications before completing the medication course (p = 0.716). Day six PCR results were available for all 152 HC+AZ participants, 149/152 (98.0%) HC participants, and 147/152 (96.7%) placebo participants. Day six ITT analysis found no difference (p = 0.821) in groups' proportions achieving virologic cure: HC +AZ 16/152 (10.5%), HC 19/149 (12.8%), placebo 18/147 (12.2%). Day 14 assessment also showed no association (p = 0.072) between study group and viral cure: HC+AZ 30/149 (20.1%,), HC 42/146 (28.8%), placebo 45/143 (31.5%). There were no serious adverse events. Interpretation: HC +/- AZ does not facilitate virologic cure in patients with mild or asymptomatic Covid-19. Funding: The study was supported by internal institutional funds of the Hamad Medical Corporation (government health service of the State of Qatar). (c) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)