Over-triage of patients by emergency medical services (EMS) dispatch is thought to be an acceptable alternative to under-triage, which may delay how quickly life-saving care reaches a patient. Previous studies have looked at advanced life support (ALS) misutilization in urban- and county-based EMS systems and have attempted to analyze how dispatch methods either contribute to or alleviate this problem.1–5

The purpose of this study is to assess the relationship between dispatches of a cardiac nature in a Medical Priority Dispatch (MPD) system, and the actual clinical diagnosis as determined by an emergency department physician.

Calls for emergency medical assistance in a suburban community outside of a major metropolitan area were surveyed over a three-month period. Medical Priority Dispatch protocols determined that 104 of these calls were cardiac-related. Of these emergency calls, 56 (53.8%) patients were transported to the local community hospital and treated by the emergency physician. A retrospective review of the medical records was conducted to determine whether the patient had a cardiac-related discharge diagnosis from the emergency department.

Sixteen (28.6%) of the patients in this cohort were diagnosed with a cardiac-related condition upon discharge from the emergency department. Forty (71.4%) were diagnosed with a non-cardiac-related condition. The positive, predictive value of the dispatch protocol for the detection of an actual cardiac emergency in this EMS system was 28.6%.

In this suburban community, the MPD system may over-triage emergency medical responses to cardiac emergencies. This can result in the only ALS (paramedic) unit in the community being unavailable in certain situations. Future studies should be conducted to determine what level (in any) of over-triage is appropriate in EMS systems using a MPD system.

Emergency medical services have invested substantial resources to establish advanced life support (ALS) programs. However, it is unclear whether ALS care provides better outcomes to patients compared to basic life support (BLS) care.

To evaluate the current evidence regarding the benefits of ALS.

Electronic medical databases were searched to identify articles that directly compared ALS versus BLS care. A total of 455 articles were found. Articles were excluded for the following reasons: (1) the article was not written in English; (2) BLS response was not compared to an ALS response; (3) a physician or nurse was included as part of the ALS response; (4) it was an aeromedical response; or (5) defibrillation was included in the ALS, but not the BLS, scope of care. Twenty-one articles met the inclusion criteria for this literature review.

Results were divided into four categories: (1) trauma; (2) cardiac arrest; (3) myocardial infarction; and (4) altered mental status.

The majority of articles showed that ALS provided no benefits over BLS in urban trauma patients. In fact, most studies showed higher mortality rates for trauma patients receiving ALS care. Further research is needed to evaluate the benefits of ALS for rural trauma patients, and whether ALS care improves outcomes in subgroups of urban trauma patients.

Cardiac arrest studies show that early CPR plus early defibrillation provide the greatest improvement in survival. However, most cardiac arrest research includes defibrillation as an ALS skill which has now moved into the BLS scope of care. The 2004 multi-center OPALS study provided good evidence that ALS does not improve cardiac arrest survival over early defibrillation. Further research is needed to address whether any ALS interventions improve cardiac arrest outcome.

Only one study directly compared the outcome of BLS and ALS care on myocardial infarction. The study found no difference in outcomes between BLS and ALS care in an urban setting.

Only one study directly compared the outcome of BLS and ALS care on patients with altered mental status. The study found that the same number of patients had improved to “alert” on arrival at the emergency department, but there was a decreased length of emergency department stay for patients treated by ALS for hypoglycemia.

This review article does not take into account the benefits of ALS interventions, such as thrombolytics, dextrose, or nitroglycerin, since no studies directly compared these interventions to BLS care. Furthermore, only one study in this literature review was a large, multi-center trial.

ALS shows little, if any, benefits for urban trauma patients. Cardiac arrest studies show that ALS does not provide additional benefits over BLS-defibrillation care, but more research is needed in this area. In two small studies, ALS care did not provide benefits over BLS care for patients with myocardial infarctions or altered mental status. Larger-scale studies are needed to evaluate which specific ALS interventions improve patient outcomes.

To evaluate three prototype versions of semi-quantitative end-tidal CO2 monitors with different alarm features during prehospital or inter-facility use.

Subjects were 43 adult, non-pregnant patients requiring intubation, or who already were intubated and required transport. Teams at one AirEvac and seven Advanced Life Support (ALS) paramedic stations were trained in the use of the monitors. Team members at each station evaluated each model for eight days. Participants completed questionnaires following each use.

The monitors performed properly in all cases, but in one case, vomit in the airway adapter tube prevented obtaining a readout. The monitors aided management in 40 of 43 cases (93%); in one, the monitor reading was reported as variable (between 20 and 30 mmHg) although the teams knew the monitors were semi-quantitative; in another, the monitor was not required, but performed properly; and the third was the one in which vomit in the tube prevented a reading. In 26 of 43 cases (60.4%), the monitor was used to confirm endotracheal tube placement (there were no instances of incorrect placement). In all cases, the devices were used to monitor respiration and oxygen saturation. Alarms were audible in the environment, but only preferred in the AirEvac situation. The “breath beep” feature was useful, particularly in patients in whom chest movements during respiration were difficult to observe.

“Breath beeps” were clearly audible and were a useful feature in all prehospital and transport environments, while audible alarms were desired only in the AirEvac situation. Semi-quantitative CO2 detection is valuable in the ALS/AirEvac environment, even for teams with high intubation success rates.