Current paramedic training mandates complete immobilization of all patients, symptomatic or not, whose mechanism of injury typically is viewed as conducive to spinal trauma. It is common to observe confrontations between paramedics and walking, asymptomatic accident victims who fail to understand why they should “wear that collar and be strapped to that board.” Immobilized, frustrated patients then may wait for hours in a busy emergency department until a physician declares them to be without spinal injury. Patients frequently refuse treatment and transport.

Algorithms exist for physicians to “clear” the cervical spine (C-spine) without radiography. It was hypothesized that paramedics routinely assess and document these indicators in their patient evaluations.

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 161 patients (Group 1) admitted to a regional medical center with a diagnosis of C-spine injury over a 52-month period. The charts of 225 motor vehicle accident (MVA) victims (Group 2) transported by ambulance to the emergency department over a five-month period then were studied. Indicators for C-spine injury documented by emergency medical service (EMS) personnel were abstracted.

All patients underwent mental status assessment and full spinal immobilization (neck and back) by EMS crews prior to transport to the hospital. Two or more indicators of possible C-spine injury were documented on each prehospital care report (PCR).

Paramedics already assess most, if not all, of the criteria standard to C-spine clearance algorithms, but are inconsistent in their documentation of the presence or absence of all of the relevant findings.

To evaluate the effectiveness of interactive videodisc (IVD) instruction of paramedics through the use of computer analysis of trip sheets.

Prospective, controlled, in an urban 9-1-1, paramedic, emergency medical services (EMS) system with total call volume of 62,000/year; 15,000 advanced life support (ALS).

All 150 paramedics in the system received eight hours of IVD instruction covering five subject areas: 1) airway; 2) head/cervical trauma; 3) chest; 4) shock; and 5) cardiac arrest. Trip sheets from 9,943 runs in the pre-IVD period were subjected to computer analysis, and a compliance score was generated using previously developed algorithms that assigned a weight to each omission and commission. After a nine-month IVD training period, 4,303 cases were collected and analyzed in the post-IVD period. Statistical analyses were made using “Student's“ t-test and Chi-square with alpha set at 0.05.

Only those records of adult patients who fit one of the five protocols were eligible for computer analysis. Of the 9,943 cases in the pre-IVD group, 480 (4.8%) were excluded, all due to inadequate data recording by the paramedics. A statistically similar portion, 233 (5.4%) of the 4,303 post-IVD instruction cases were excluded (p = .15).

Overall the mean compliance score of the pre-IVD group was 0.65 ±0.19 (±SD). The post-IVD group score was 0.65 ±0.19 (p = 0.99). Analysis of scores for each algorithm also showed no significant differences. This study had an observed power of .94 to detect a difference in compliance as small as 0.030.

Eight hours of IVD instruction did not result in improved paramedic performance as judged by computer analysis of trip sheets.

Emergency medical services vehicle collisions (EMVCs) associated with the use of warning “lights and siren” (L&S) are responsible for injuries and death to emergency medical services (EMS) personnel and patients. This study examines patient outcome when medical protocol directs L&S transport.

During four months, all EMS calls initiated as an emergency request for service and culminating in transport to an emergency department (ED) were included. Medical criteria determined emergent (L&S) versus non-emergent transport. Patients with worsened conditions, as reported by EMS providers, were reviewed.

Countywide suburban/rural EMS system.

Ninety-two percent (1,495 of 1,625) of patients were transported non-emergently. Thirteen (1%) of these were reported to have worsened during transport, and none of them suffered any worsened outcome related to the non-L&S transport.

This medical protocol directing the use of warning L&S during patient transport results in infrequent L&S transport. In this study, no adverse outcomes were found related to non-L&S transports.

Background: In some emergency medical services (EMS) system designs, response time intervals are mandated with monetary penalties for noncompliance. These times are set with the goal of providing rapid, definitive patient care. The time interval of vehicle at scene-to-patient access (VSPA) has been measured, but its effect on response time interval compliance has not been determined.

To determine the effect of the VSPA interval on the mandated code 1 (<9 min) and code 2 (<13 min) response time interval compliance in an urban, public-utility model system.

A prospective, observational study used independent third-party riders to collect the VSPA interval for emergency life-threatening (code 1) and emergency nonlife-threatening (code 2) calls. The VSPA interval was added to the 9-1-1 call-to-dispatch and vehicle dispatch-to-scene intervals to determine the total time interval from call received until paramedic access to the patient (9-1-1 call-to-patient access). Compliance with the man dated response time intervals was determined using the traditional time intervals (9-1-1 call-to-scene) plus the VSPA time intervals (9-1-1 call-to-patient access). Chi-square was used to determine statistical significance.

Of the 216 observed calls, 198 were matched to the traditional time intervals. Sixty three were code 1, and 135 were code 2. Of the code 1 calls, 90.5% were compliant using 9-1-1 call-to-scene intervals dropping to 63.5% using 9-1-1 call-to-patient access intervals (p<0.0005). Of the code 2 calls, 94.1% were compliant using 9-1-1 call-to-scene intervals. Compliance decreased to 83.7% using 9-1-1 call-to-patient access intervals (p = 0.012).

The addition of the VSPA interval to the traditional time intervals impacts system response time compliance. Using 9-1-1 call-to-scene compliance as a basis for measuring system performance underestimates the time for the delivery of definitive care. This must be considered when response time interval compliances are defined.

Proper airway control in trauma patients who have sustained cervical spine fracture remains controversial.

This study was undertaken to survey the preferred methods of airway management in cervical spine fracture (CSF) patients, to evaluate the experience of handling such patients at a level-I trauma center, and to contrast the findings with recommendations of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma.

The methods used for control of the airway in patients with fractures of their cervical spine support the recommendation of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Committee on Trauma.

The study consisted of two parts: 1) a survey; and 2) a retrospective study. Survey questionnaires were sent to 199 members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma and to 161 anesthesiology training programs throughout the United States. Three resuscitation scenarios were posed: 1) Elective airway—CSF—breathing spontaneously, stable vital signs; 2) Urgent airway—CSF—breathing spontaneously, unstable vital signs; and 3) Emergent airway—CSF—apneic, unstable. In addition, a three-year retrospective study was conducted at a level-I trauma center to determine the method of airway control in patients with cervical spine fractures.

Responses to the questionnaires were received from 101 trauma surgeons (TS) and 58 anesthesiologists (ANESTH). Respondents indicated their preference of airway methods: Elective airway: Nasotracheal intubation: TS 69%, ANESTH 53%. Orotracheal intubation: TS and ANESTH 27%. Surgical airway: TS 4%. Intubation with fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB): ANESTH 20%. Urgent airway: Nasotracheal intubation: TS 48%, ANESTH 38%. Orotracheal intubation: TS 47%, ANESTH 45%. Surgical airway: TS 4%. FOB: ANESTH 16%. Emergent airway: Orotracheal intubation: TS 81 %, ANESTH 78%. Surgical Airway: TS 19%, ANESTH 7%. FOB: ANESTH 15%.

The retrospective review at the trauma center indicated that 102 patients with CSF were admitted; 62 required intubation: four (6%) on the scene, seven (11%) en route, five (8%) in the emergency department, 42 (67%) in the operating room, and four (6%) on the general surgery floor. Airway control methods used were nasotracheal: 14 (22%); orotracheal: 27 (43%); FOB: 17 (27%); tracheostomy: one (2%); unknown: three (4%). No progression of the neurological status resulted from intubation.

The choice of airway control in the trauma patient with CSF differs between anesthesiologists and surgeons. However, the method selected does not have an adverse affect on neurological status as long as in-line stabilization is maintained. The methods available are safe, effective, and acceptable. The recommendations of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma for airway control with suspected cervical spine injury are useful. The technique utilized is dependent upon the judgment and experience of the intubator.

1) There is no increase in transport or scene time of diverted patients and no increase in distances traveled; 2) hospital resource shortages bear no relationship to the number of patients diverted; and 3) paramedics are able to match their patient correctly with the resources available at a given hospital.

This was a five-month, prospective, observational study in an urban area with a population of 600,000 comparing all 9-1-1 ambulance diversions against a randomly selected sample of 5% of all other 9-1-1 originated patients. All patient diversions that originated from the 9-1-1 center are included in the study.

Hospitals identify their diversion status on a community-wide computer system monitored at the 9-1-1 center and base station. Accepted categories include: 1) diversion of all patients through the 9-1-1 center from the emergency department (ED); 2) trauma system patients (T); 3) psychiatric secure beds (PSB); 4) general acute ward beds (AW); 5) critical care (CC); 6) computed tomography scan (CT); 7) labor and delivery (LD); and 8) pediatric beds (PEDS). Data were abstracted from 481 patients' records. A total of 111 were diverted from their intended destination. Transport times were longer and diverted patients traveled further (p <.002). Hospitals showing ED and LD diversion categories were more likely to have patients diverted away (r2 = .895, multilinear regression, p <.001). Of the 111 patients, 21 (19%) were diverted because of CC unavailability. Six of these (28%) were inappropriate because they did not fit the CC definition.

In this system, hospital diversions increase transport times and distances traveled. Diversion of patients correlated strongly to unavailability of specific categories. Paramedics make errors in determining appropriate CC diversions. Systems reviewing their diversion problems need to assess the impact of longer out-of-hospital times and of certain diversion categories, and to clarify definitions.

Advanced airway intervention techniques are being considered for use by basic emergency medical technicians (EMTs). It was hypothesized that basic EMTs would be able to discriminate reliably between intratracheal and esophageal endotracheal tube, placement in a mannequin model.

An airway mannequin with a closed chest cavity was intubated randomly either esophageally or tracheally, and the cuff was inflated. A stethoscope, bag ventilator, and laryngoscope were available next to the mannequin. Placement was assessed by auscultation or direct visualization at the discretion of the EMT. A blinded investigator graded the student.

A classroom in a large, urban medical center.

Subjects were basic EMTs who volunteered to take part after the conclusion of a six-hour endotracheal intubation training course.

Thirty-three subjects were tested. Seventeen of 18 (94%) tracheal intubations and 11 of 15 (73%) esophageal intubations were identified correctly. Only 72% of the students listened to the epigastrium, 81% listened to the lungs, and 85% attempted ventilation. The 10 students who visualized the cords discovered all five esophageal intubations. The 23 students who did not visualize the cords missed four and found six esophageal intubations.

Basic EMTs had difficulty assessing endotracheal tube placement in a mannequin model. The 27% miss rate for identifying esophageal intubations suggests that basic EMTs will require additional training for safe field use of any airway that requires assessment of tube placement.