Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:35:24.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of On-Line Medical Command to Randomize Patients in a Prehospital Research Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Bartholomew J. Tortella ,
Robert F. Lavery ,
Mark Quadrel ,
Ronald P. Cody  and
Greg Heyt
Bartholomew J. Tortella*
Affiliation:
New Jersey Trauma and EMS Research Center, UMDNJ-University Hospital, Department of Surgery, Section of Trauma and EMS UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey
Robert F. Lavery
Affiliation:
New Jersey Trauma and EMS Research Center, UMDNJ-University Hospital, Department of Surgery, Section of Trauma and EMS
Mark Quadrel
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Newark, New Jersey
Ronald P. Cody
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental and Community Medicine, The Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, New Jersey
Greg Heyt
Affiliation:
UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey
*
University Hospital, Rm. J-200, 150 Bergen St., Newark, NJ 07103-2406USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To describe the efficiency of using on-line medical command (OLMC) to conduct a prospective, randomized clinical trial addressing safety and patient enrollment.

Design, Setting, and Participants:

Prospective design using OLMC to randomize adult asthmatics into one of three treatment groups. After verifying inclusion and exclusion criteria, OLMC physicians removed a covering label on study sheets and ordered the treatment specified underneath the label that had been assigned in a random sequence.

Results:

A total of 204 patients were seen with dyspnea and wheezing during the three-month study. Of these, 68 (33%) were excluded from the study. Of the 136 (67%) patients who were eligible for study, 87 were enrolled (enrollment efficiency 64%), with 79 fully evaluable (evaluable efficiency 91%). The study safety was 100% because no enrolled patients met any exclusion criteria.

Conclusions:

The design was random and prospective, with patient entry blinded, using paramedics to enroll patients and OLMC physicians as gatekeepers, thus ensuring appropriate patient eligibility and study-arm assignment. Use of OLMC physicians to perform prospective randomized studies is safe and efficient, and results in a high yield of evaluable patients.

Keywords

emergency medical serviceson-line medical controlparamedicsprehospital careresearch design
Type
Brief Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 55 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1996

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.)

Footnotes

*Presented at the Research Forum, 12th Annual EMS Today Meeting, 1994, in Seattle, Washington.

References

1. Shuster, M, Chong, J: Pharmacologic intervention in prehospital care: A critical appraisal. Ann Emerg Med 1989;18:192–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Pepe, PE: Controlled studies in the prehospital setting: A viable, important venue for clinical research. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1990;5:285–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Yealy, DM, Scruggs, KH: Study design and pre-trial, peer review in EMS research. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1990;5:113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Vassar, MJ, Perry, CA, Holcroft, JW: Prehospital resuscitation of hypotensive trauma patients with 7.5% NaCl versus 7.5% NaCl with added dextran: A controlled trial. J Trauma 1993;34:632–633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Callaham, M, Madsen, CD, Barton, CW, et al. : A randomized clinical trial of high-dose epinephrine and nonepinephrine versus standard-dose epinephrine in prehospital cardiac arrest. JAMA 1992;268:2667–2672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Cayten, CG, Oler, J, Walker, K, et al. : The effect of telemetry on urban prehospital cardiac care. Ann Emerg Med 1985;14:976–981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Erder, MH, Davidson, SJ, Cheney, RA: On-line medical command in theory and practice. Ann Emerg Med 1989;18:261–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Gausche, M, Persse, DE, Sugarman, T, et al. : Adenosine for the prehospital treatment of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia. Ann Emerg Med 1994;24:183–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Mattox, KL, Bickell, W, Pepe, PE: Prospective MAST study in 911 patients. J Trauma 1989;29:1104–1112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Bickell, W, Wall, MJ, Pepe, PE: Immediate versus delayed fluid resuscitation for hypotensive patients with penetrating torso injuries. N Engl Med 1994;331:1105–1109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Mattox, KL, Maningas, PA, Moore, EE: Prehospital hypertonic saline/dextran infusion for post-traumatic hypotension. The USA multicenter trial. Ann Surg 1991;213:482–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Pepe, PE, Mattox, KL, Kaplan, RM, et al. : Data collection by paramedics for prehospital research. Ann Emerg Med 1988;17:414–415.Google Scholar
13. Pepe, PE: Out-of-hospital resuscitation research: Rationale and strategies for controlled clinical trials. Ann Emerg Med 1993;2217–2223.Google ScholarPubMed
14. Jones, SE, Brenneis, AT: Study design in prehospital trauma advanced life support-basic life support research: A critical review. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20:857–860.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Abramson, NS, Meisel, A, Safer, P: Informed consent in resuscitation research. JAMA 1981;246:2828–2830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Grim, PS, Singer, PA, Gramelspacher, GP, et al. : Informed consent in emergency research. JAMA 1989;262:252–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Spivey, WH: Informed consent for clinical research in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1989;18:766–771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Ayres, RJ: Issues of patient consent and liability for unauthorized treatment. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1990;5:231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar