Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:36:03.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Association between Patient Unconscious or Not Alert Conditions and Cardiac Arrest or High-Acuity Outcomes within the Medical Priority Dispatch System “Falls” Protocol

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Jeff Clawson ,
Christopher Olola ,
Greg Scott ,
Bryon Schultz ,
Richard Pertgen ,
Don Robinson ,
Barry Bagwell  and
Brett Patterson
Jeff Clawson*
Affiliation:
International Academies of Emergency Dispatch, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Christopher Olola
Affiliation:
International Academies of Emergency Dispatch, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Greg Scott
Affiliation:
International Academies of Emergency Dispatch, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Bryon Schultz
Affiliation:
Emergency Medical Services Authority, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
Richard Pertgen
Affiliation:
Richmond Ambulance Authority, Richmond, Virginia, USA
Don Robinson
Affiliation:
Mecklenburg Emergency Medical Services Agency (MEDIC), Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
Barry Bagwell
Affiliation:
Mecklenburg Emergency Medical Services Agency (MEDIC), Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
Brett Patterson
Affiliation:
International Academies of Emergency Dispatch, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
*
International Academies of Emergency Dispatch, 139 East South Temple, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Falls are one of the most common types of complaints received by 9-1-1 emergency medical dispatch centers. They can be accidental or may be caused by underlying medical problems. Though not alert” falls patients with severe outcomes mostly are “hot” transported to the hospital, some of these cases may be due to other acute medical events (cardiac, respiratory, circulatory, or neurological), which may not always be apparent to the emergency medical dispatcher (EMD) during call processing.

Objectives:

The objective of this study was to characterize the risk of cardiac arrest and “hot-transport” outcomes in patients with “not alert” condition, within the Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS®) Falls protocol descriptors.

Methods:

This retrospective study used 129 months of de-identified, aggregate, dispatch datasets from three US emergency communication centers. The communication centers used the Medical Priority Dispatch System version 11.3–OMEGA type (released in 2006) to interrogate Emergency Medical System callers, select dispatch codes assigned to various response configurations, and provide pre-arrival instructions. The distribution of cases and percentages of cardiac arrest and hot-transport outcomes, categorized by MPDS® code, was profiled. Assessment of the association between MPDS® Delta-level 3 (D-3) “not alert” condition and cardiac arrest and hot-transport outcomes then followed.

Results:

Overall, patients within the D-3 and D-2 “long fall” conditions had the highest proportions (compared to the other determinants in the “falls” protocol) of cardiac arrest and hot-transport outcomes, respectively. “Not alert” condition was associated significantly with cardiac arrest and hot-transport outcomes (p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

The “not alert” determinant within the MPDS® “fall” protocol was associated significantly with severe outcomes for short falls (<6 feet; 2 meters) and ground-level falls. As reported to 9-1-1, the complaint of a “fall” may include the presence of underlying conditions that go beyond the obvious traumatic injuries caused by the fall itself.

Keywords

automated medical records systemcardiac arrestemergency medical servicesdispatch outcomesfallshigh acuitypatient outcome assessmentsprehospital emergency careunconsciousness
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , August 2010 , pp. 302 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Davies, AJ, Kenny, RA: Falls presenting to the accident and emergency department: types of presentation and risk factor profile. Age Ageing 1996;25(5):362–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Urgences Sante, Personal communication, 1999.Google Scholar
3.Clawson, J: Manhunt! Improve AED response: helping police enrich “The cardiac arrest quotient”. The National Center for Early Defibrillation from the special educational supplement, “The Life You Save. Community Defibrillation Programs and the Public Safety Responder”, February 2002.Google Scholar
4.International Academies of Emergency Dispatch (IAED): Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) v11.3 UKE-Ω Protocol. Advanced Medical Priority Dispatch System®, 2006.Google Scholar
5.Hinchey, P, Myers, B, Zalkin, J, Lewis, R, Garner, D: Low acuity EMS dispatch criteria can reliably identify patients without high-acuity illness or injury. Prehosp Emerg Care 2007;11:42–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Michael, GE, Sporer, KA: Validation of low-acuity Emergency Medical Services Dispatch codes. Prehosp Emerg Care 2005;9(4):429–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Shah, MN, Bishop, P, Lerner, EB, Czapranski, T, Davis, EA: Derivation of emergency medical services dispatch codes associated with low-acuity patients. Prehosp Emerg Care 2003;7(4):434–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Sporer, KA, Youngblood, GM, Rodriguez, RM: The ability of Emergency Medical Dispatch codes of medical complaints to predict ALS prehospital interventions. Prehosp Emerg Car e 2007;11(2):192–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Kupas, DF, Dula, DJ, Pino, BJ: Patient outcome using medical protocol to limit “lights and siren” transport. Prehosp Disaster Med 1994;9(4):226–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Garza, AG, Gratton, MC, McElroy, J, Lindholm, D, Glass, E: The association of dispatch and patient acuity. Prehosp Emerg Care 2008;12:24–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Clawson, J, Olola, C, Heward, A, Patterson, B, Scott, G: The Medical Priority Dispatch System's ability to predict cardiac arrest outcomes and high acuity pre-hospital alerts in chest pain patients presenting to 9-9-9. Resuscitation 2008; 78(3):298–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Clawson, J, Olola, C, Scott, G, Heward, A, Patterson, B: Effect of a Medical Priority Dispatch System key question addition in the seizure/convulsion/fitting protocol to improve recognition of ineffective (agonal) breathing. Resuscitation 2008;79:257–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Clawson, J, Olola, C, Heward, A, Patterson, B: Cardiac arrest predictability in seizure patients based on emergency medical dispatcher identification of previous seizure or epilepsy history. Resuscitation 2007;75(2):298–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Clawson, J, Olola, CH, Heward, A, Scott, G, Patterson, B: Accuracy of emergency medical dispatchers' subjective ability to identify when higher dispatch levels are warranted over a Medical Priority Dispatch System automated protocol's recommended coding based on paramedic outcome data. Emerg Med J 2007;24(8):560–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Clawson, J, Olola, C, Heward, A, Patterson, B, Scott, G: Ability of the Medical Priority Dispatch System protocol to predict acuity of “unknown problem” dispatch response levels. Prehosp Emerg Care 2008;12(3):290–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Clawson, J, Olola, C, Heward, A, Patterson, B, Scott, G: The Profile of Emergency Medical Dispatch Calls for breathing problems within the Medical Priority Dispatch System Protocol. Prehosp Disaster Med 2008;23(5):416–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed