Introduction: An increasing number of Canadian paramedic services are creating Community Paramedic programs targeting treatment of long-term care (LTC) patients on-site. We explored the characteristics, clinical course and disposition of LTC patients cared for by paramedics during an emergency call, and the possible impact of Community Paramedic programs. Methods: We completed a health records review of paramedic call reports and emergency department (ED) records between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. We utilized paramedic dispatch data to identify emergency calls originating from LTC centers resulting in transport to one of the two EDs of the Ottawa Hospital. We excluded patients with absent vital signs, a Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) score of 1, and whose transfer to hospital were deferrable or scheduled. We stratified remaining cases by month and selected cases using a random number generator to meet our apriori sample size. We collected data using a piloted standardized form. We used descriptive statistics and categorized patients into groups based on the ED care received and if the treatment received fit into current paramedic medical directives. Results: Characteristics of the 381 included patients were mean age 82.5 years, 58.5% female, 59.7% hypertension, 52.6% dementia and 52.1% cardiovascular disease. On arrival at hospital, 57.7% of patients waited in offload delay for a median time of 45 minutes (IQR 33.5-78.0). We could identify 4 groups: 1) Patients requiring no treatment or diagnostics in the ED (7.9%); 2) Patients receiving ED treatment within current paramedic medical directives and no diagnostics (3.2%); 3) Patients requiring diagnostics or ED care outside current paramedic directives (54.9%); and 4) patients requiring admission (34.1%). Most patients were discharged from the ED (65.6%), and 1.1% died. The main ED diagnoses were infection (18.6%) and musculoskeletal injury (17.9%). Of the patients that required ED care but were discharged, 64.1% required x-rays, 42.1% CT, and 3.4% ultrasound. ED care included intravenous fluids (35.7%), medication (67.5%), antibiotics (29.4%), non-opioid analgesics (29.4%) and opioids (20.7%). Overall, 11.1% of patients didn't need management beyond current paramedic capabilities. Conclusion: Many LTC patients could receive care by paramedics on-site within current medical directives and avoid a transfer to the ED. This group could potentially grow using Community Paramedics with an expanded scope of practice.

Introduction: Emergency department (ED) crowding, long waits for care, and paramedic offload delay are of increasing concern. Older adults living in long-term care (LTC) are more likely to utilize the ED and are vulnerable to adverse events. We sought to identify existing programs that seek to avoid ED visits from LTC facilities where allied health professionals are the primary providers of the intervention and, to evaluate their efficacy and safety. Methods: We completed this systematic review based on a protocol we published apriori and following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. We systematically searched Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE with terms relating to long-term care, emergency services, hospitalization and allied health personnel. Two investigators independently selected studies and extracted data using a piloted standardized form and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies. We report a narrative synthesis grouped by intervention categories. Results: We reviewed 11,176 abstracts and included 22 studies. Most studies were observational and few assessed patient safety. We found five categories of interventions including: 1) use of advanced practice nursing; 2) a program called Interventions to Reduce Acute Care Transfers (INTERACT); 3) end-of-life care; 4) condition specific interventions; and 5) use of extended care paramedics. Of the 13 studies that reported ED visits, all (100%) reported a decrease, and of the 16/17 that reported hospitalization, 94.1% reported a decrease. Patient adverse events such as functional status and relapse were seldom reported (6/22) as were measures of emergency system function such as crowding/inability of paramedics to transfer care to the ED (1/22). Only 4/22 studies evaluated patient mortality and 3/4 found a non-statistically significant worsening. When measured, studies reported decreased hospital length of stay, more time spent with patients by allied health professionals and cost savings. Conclusion: We found five types of programs/interventions which all demonstrated a decrease in ED visits or hospitalization. Many identified programs focused on improved primary care for patients. Interventions addressing acute care issues such as those provided by community paramedics, patient preferences, and quality of life indicators all deserve more study.

Introduction: Community Paramedics (CPs) require access to timely blood analysis in the field to guide treatment and transport decisions. Point of care testing (POCT), as opposed to traditional laboratory analysis, may offer a solution, but limited research exists on CP POCT. The objective of this study is to compare the validity of two POCT devices (Abbott i-STAT® and Alere epoc®) and their use by CPs in the community. Methods: In a CP programme responding to 6,000 annual patient care events, a split sample validation of POCT against traditional laboratory analysis for seven analytes (sodium, potassium, chloride, creatinine, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and glucose) was conducted on a consecutive sample of patients. The difference of proportion of discrepant results between POCT and laboratory was compared using a two sample proportion test. Usability was analysed by survey of CP experience, an expert heuristic evaluation of devices, a review of device-logged errors, coded observations of POCT use during quality control testing, and a linear mixed effects model of Systems Usability Scale (SUS) adjusted for CP clinical and POCT experience. Results: Of 1,649 CP calls for service screened for enrollment, 174 had a blood draw, with 108 patient care encounters (62.1%) enrolled from 73 participants. Participants had a mean age of 58.7 years (SD16.3); 49% were female. In 4 of 646 (0.6%) individual comparisons, POCT reported a critical value that the laboratory did not; with no statistically significant difference in the number of discrepant critical values reported with epoc® compared to i-STAT®. There were no instances of the laboratory reporting a critical value when POCT did not. In 88 of 1,046 (8.4%) individual comparisons, the a priori defined acceptable difference between POCT and the laboratory was exceeded; occurring more often in epoc® (10.7%;95%CI:8.1%,13.3%) compared to i-STAT® (6.1%;95%CI:4.1%,8.2%)(p=0.007). Eighteen of 19 CP surveys were returned, with 11/18 (61.1%) preferring i-STAT® over epoc®. The i-STAT® had a higher mean SUS score (higher usability) compared to the epoc® (84.0/100 vs. 59.6/100; p=0.011). Fewer field blood analysis device-logged errors occurred in i-STAT® (7.8%;95%CI:2.9%,12.7%) compared to epoc® (15.5%;95%CI:9.3%,21.7%) although not statistically significant (p=0.063). Conclusion: CP programs can expect valid results from POCT. Usability assessment suggests a preference for i-STAT.