The motorcycle ambulance is used for quick access to patients. The response time to reach the patient takes less time than with a van ambulance. Moreover, accidents involving ambulances tend to be higher. However, at present, there is no study regarding the appropriate situation used of motorcycle ambulances in Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in Thailand.

This study aims to optimize the travel distance and the operation time of motorcycle ambulances used.

This study was a prospective, randomized controlled study at the EMS unit of Srinagarind Hospital, Thailand. The data collection period was from November 2021 through May 2022. All data involving dispatch of both ambulances in need were collected.

A total of 2,398 cases of EMS operation were examined. The mean age of the patients in the motorcycle ambulance group was 42.5 (SD = 6.5) years, and 51.3% (n = 616) were male. The response time for motorcycle ambulances and van ambulances during the operation time between 6:00am-9:00am was 6.2 minutes and 9.1 minutes, respectively. The response times for motorcycle ambulances and van ambulances regarding distance traveled from 0-5km were 4.2 minutes and 7.5 minutes, respectively (P <.001); distance traveled from 5-10km were 6.3 minutes and 8.2 minutes, respectively (P = .010).

The motorcycle ambulance can reach patients faster than the ambulance at the operation time from 6:00am-9:00am and 3:00pm-6:00pm. This study focused on the distance less than 10 kilometers.

Mass-casualty incidents (MCIs) are events in which many people are injured during the same period of time. This has major implications in regards to practical concerns and planning for both personnel and medical equipment. Smart glasses are modern tools that could help Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in the estimation of the number of potential patients in an MCI. However, currently there is no study regarding the advantage of employing the use of smart glasses in MCIs in Thailand.

This study aims to compare the overall accuracy and amount of time used with smart glasses and comparing it to manual counting to assess the number of casualties from the scene.

This study was a randomized controlled trial, field exercise experimental study in the EMS unit of Srinagarind Hospital, Thailand. The participants were divided into two groups (those with smart glasses and those doing manual counting). On the days of the simulation (February 25 and 26, 2022), the participants in the smart glasses group received a 30-minute training session on the use of the smart glasses. After that, both groups of participants counted the number of casualties on the simulation field independently.

Sixty-eight participants were examined, and in the smart glasses group, a total of 58.8% (N = 20) of the participants were male. The mean age in this group was 39.4 years old. The most experienced in the EMS smart glasses group had worked in this position for four-to-six years (44.1%). The participants in the smart glasses group had the highest scores in accurately assessing the number of casualties being between 21-30 (98.0%) compared with the manual counting group (89.2%). Additionally, the time used for assessing the number of casualties in the smart glasses group was shorter than the manual counting group in tallying the number of casualties between 11-20 (6.3 versus 11.2 seconds; P = .04) and between 21-30 (22.1 versus 44.5 seconds; P = .02).

The use of smart glasses to assess the number of casualties in MCIs when the number of patients is between 11 and 30 is useful in terms of greater accuracy and less time being spent than with manual counting.

Prehospital use of lung ultrasound (LUS) by paramedics to guide the diagnoses and treatment of patients has expanded over the past several years. However, almost all of this education has occurred in a classroom or hospital setting. No published prehospital use of LUS simulation software within an ambulance currently exists.

The objective of this study was to determine if various ambulance driving conditions (stationary, constant acceleration, serpentine, and start-stop) would impact paramedics’ abilities to perform LUS on a standardized patient (SP) using breath-holding to simulate lung pathology, or to perform LUS using ultrasound (US) simulation software. Primary endpoints included the participating paramedics’: (1) time to acquiring a satisfactory simulated LUS image; and (2) accuracy of image recognition and interpretation. Secondary endpoints for the breath-holding portion included: (1) the agreement between image interpretation by paramedic versus blinded expert reviewers; and (2) the quality of captured LUS image as determined by two blinded expert reviewers. Finally, a paramedic LUS training session was evaluated by comparing pre-test to post-test scores on a 25-item assessment requiring the recognition of a clinical interpretation of prerecorded LUS images.

Seventeen paramedics received a 45-minute LUS lecture. They then performed 25 LUS exams on both SPs and using simulation software, in each case looking for lung sliding, A and B lines, and seashore or barcode signs. Pre- and post-training, they completed a 25-question test consisting of still images and videos requiring pathology recognition and formulation of a clinical diagnosis. Sixteen paramedics performed the same exams in an ambulance during different driving conditions (stationary, constant acceleration, serpentines, and abrupt start-stops). Lung pathology was block randomized based on driving condition.

Paramedics demonstrated improved post-test scores compared to pre-test scores (P <.001). No significant difference existed across driving conditions for: time needed to obtain a simulated image; clinical interpretation of simulated LUS images; quality of saved images; or agreement of image interpretation between paramedics and blinded emergency physicians (EPs). Image acquisition time while parked was significantly greater than while the ambulance was driving in serpentines (Z = -2.898; P = .008). Technical challenges for both simulation techniques were noted.

Paramedics can correctly acquire and interpret simulated LUS images during different ambulance driving conditions. However, simulation techniques better adapted to this unique work environment are needed.

Analysis of injuries during military operations has focused on those related to combat. Non-combat complaints have received less attention, despite the need for many troops to be evacuated for non-battle illnesses in Iraq. This study aims to further characterize the disease and non-battle injuries (DNBIs) seen at a tertiary combat hospital and to describe the types of procedures and medications used in the management of these cases.

In this observational study, patients were enrolled from a convenience sample with non-combat-related diseases and injuries who were evaluated in the emergency department (ED) of a US military tertiary hospital in Iraq from 2007-2008. The treating emergency physician (EP) used a data collection form to enroll patients that arrived to the ED whose injury or illness was unrelated to combat.

Data were gathered on 1,745 patients with a median age of 30 years; 84% of patients were male and 85% were US military personnel. The most common diagnoses evaluated in the ED were abdominal disorders, orthopedic injuries, and headache. Many cases involved intravenous access, laboratory testing, and radiographic testing. Procedures performed included electrocardiogram, lumbar puncture, and intubation.

Disease and non-battle traumatic injuries are common in a tertiary combat hospital. Emergency providers working in austere settings should have the diagnostic and procedural skills to evaluate and treat DNBIs.

BebartaVS, MoraAG, NgPC, MasonPE, MuckA, MaddryJK. Disease and Non-Battle Traumatic Injuries Evaluated by Emergency Physicians in a US Tertiary Combat Hospital. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(1):53–57.

To evaluate the relationship between Emergency Physician (EP) productivity and patient satisfaction with Emergency Department (ED) care.

This retrospective observational study linked administrative and patient experience databases to measure correlations between the patient experience and EP productivity. The study was performed across three Calgary EDs (from June 2010 to July 2013). Patients>16 years old with completed Health Quality Council of Alberta (HQCA) ED Patient Experience Surveys were included. EP productivity was measured at the individual physician level and defined as the average number of patients seen per hour. The association between physician productivity and patient experience scores from six composite domains of the HQCA ED Patient Experience Survey were examined using Pearson correlation coefficients, linear regression modelling, and a path analysis.

We correlated 3,794 patient experience surveys with productivity data for 130 EPs. Very weak non-significant negative correlations existed between productivity and survey composites: “Staff Care and Communication” (r=-0.057, p=0.521), “Discharge Communication” (r=-0.144, p=0.102), and “Respect” (r=-0.027, p=0.760). Very weak, non-significant positive correlations existed between productivity and the composite domains: “Medication Communication” (r=0.003, p=0.974) and “Pain management” (r=0.020, p=0.824). A univariate general linear model yielded no statistically significant correlations between EP productivity and patient experience, and the path analysis failed to show a relationship between the variables.

We found no correlation between EP productivity and the patient experience.

This study aimed to review available disaster training options for health care providers, and to provide specific recommendations for developing and delivering a disaster-response-training program for non-disaster-trained emergency physicians, residents, and trainees prior to acute deployment.

A comprehensive review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature of the existing training options for health care providers was conducted to provide specific recommendations.

A comprehensive search of the Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify publications related to courses for disaster preparedness and response training for health care professionals. This search revealed 7,681 unique titles, of which 53 articles were included in the full review. A total of 384 courses were found through the grey literature search, and many of these were available online for no charge and could be completed in less than six hours. The majority of courses focused on management and disaster planning; few focused on clinical care and acute response.

There is need for a course that is targeted toward emergency physicians and trainees without formal disaster training. This course should be available online and should utilize a mix of educational modalities, including lectures, scenarios, and virtual simulations. An ideal course should focus on disaster preparedness, and the clinical and non-clinical aspects of response, with a focus on an all-hazards approach, including both terrorism-related and environmental disasters.

HansotiB, KelloggDS, AberleSJ, BroccoliMC, FedenJ, FrenchA, LittleCM, MooreB, SabatoJJr., SheetsT, WeinbergR, ElmesP, KangC. Preparing Emergency Physicians for Acute Disaster Response: A Review of Current Training Opportunities in the US. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(6):643–647.

Emergency physicians are expected to rule out clinically important cervical spine injuries using clinical skills and imaging. Our objective was to determine whether emergency physicians could accurately rule out clinically important cervical spine injuries using computed tomographic (CT) imaging of the cervical spine.

Fifteen emergency physicians were enrolled to interpret a sample of 50 cervical spine CT scans in a nonclinical setting. The sample contained a 30% incidence of cervical spine injury. After a 2-hour review session, the participants interpreted the CT scans and categorized them into either a suspected cervical spine injury or no cervical spine injury. Participants were asked to specify the location and type of injury. The gold standard interpretation was the combined opinion of two staff radiologists.

Emergency physicians correctly identified 182 of the 210 abnormal cases with cervical spine injury. The sensitivity of emergency physicians was 87% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82–91), and the specificity was 76% (95% CI 74–77). The negative likelihood ratio was 0.18 (95% CI 0.12–0.25).

Experienced emergency physicians successfully identified a large proportion of cervical spine injuries on CT; however, they were not sufficiently sensitive to accurately exclude clinically important injuries. Emergency physicians should rely on a radiologist review of cervical spine CT scans prior to discontinuing cervical spine precautions.

Medical licensing bodies and professional colleges require their members to maintain a broad spectrum of knowledge, skills and attitudes, which, when taken together, define a competent emergency physician (EP). The objectives of this pilot study were: 1) to determine the resources used by academic EPs to maintain competence and 2) to determine academic EPs' learning priorities.

Using a modified Dillman method, we surveyed EPs from 2 Canadian academic tertiary health sciences centres.

Thirty-seven (68.5%) of 54 EPs responded. Of those responding, 14 (37.8%) attended grand rounds 3 times or more annually, and 34 (91.7%) attended a medical conference or course at least once annually. Thirty-three (89.2%) respondents read journal articles at least once monthly, with 22 (59.5%) of those reading synopses of original articles. Twenty-three (62.1%) received clinical updates via email, and 11 (29.7%) subscribed to an audio journal or podcast of reviews of original research. Among the CanMEDS roles, Medical Expert, Scholar and Manager were selected as top professional development priorities by more than one-third of respondents. The topics that were not selected as priorities by respondents included patient communication and charting (Communicator); conflict resolution skills and teamwork abilities (Collaborator); advocate for patient and promote health in emergency department populations (Health Advocate) and ethical conflict resolution (Professional).

The results of this pilot study suggest that in order to maintain clinical competence in emergency medicine, traditional formats of professional development (e.g., grand rounds, print media and original research) are being substituted for independent study, online media and reviews of original research. This study also suggests a strong preference for Medical Expert topics, while Professional, Health Advocate, Collaborator and Communicator topics are not a reported priority for professional development.

Our objective was to determine whether the addition of a broad-scope nurse practitioner (NP) would improve emergency department (ED) wait times, ED lengths of stay (LOS) and left-without-treatment (LWOT) rates. We hypothesized that the addition of a broad-scope NP during weekday ED shifts would result in shorter patient wait times, reduced LOS and fewer patients leaving the ED without treatment.

This prospective observational study was conducted in a busy urban free-standing community ED. Intervention shifts, with NP coverage, were compared with control shifts (similar shifts with emergency physicians [EPs] working independently). Primary outcomes included patient wait times, ED LOS and LWOT rates. Patient demographics, triage category, the provider seen, the time to provider and ED LOS were captured using an electronic database.

The addition of an NP was associated with a 12% increase in patient volume per shift and a 7-minute reduction in mean wait times for low-acuity patients. However, overall patient wait times and ED LOS did not differ between intervention and control shifts. During intervention shifts, EPs saw a smaller proportion of low-acuity patients and there was a trend toward a lower proportion of LWOT patients (11.9% v. 13.7%, p = 0.10).

Adding a broad-scope NP to the ED staff may lower the proportion of patients who leave without treatment, reduce the proportion of low-acuity patients seen by EPs and expedite throughput for a subgroup of less urgent patients. However, it did not reduce overall wait times or ED LOS in this setting.

Our objective was to compare the emergency care provided by a nurse practitioner (NP) with that provided by emergency physicians (EPs), to identify emergency department (ED) patients appropriate for autonomous NP practice and to acquire data to facilitate the development of the clinical scope of practice recommendations for ED practice for NPs.

Using a comprehensive 3-part process, we selected and hired the best NP from 12 applicants. The NP was oriented to the operations of our free-standing community ED and incorporated in the care team, working in real time with EP preceptors during a 6-month, prospective clinical assessment comparing NP care with EP care. ED preceptors reviewed every case in real time with the NP and completed an explicit evaluation form to determine whether NP assessment, investigation, treatment and disposition were “all equivalent to emergency physician care” (AEEPC) or whether they differed. The proportion of AEEPC interactions was determined for 23 patient presentation categories. Our a priori assumption was that a patient presentation category might be suitable for autonomous NP practice if 50% of NP encounters in that category were rated as AEEPC. Descriptive data were presented for patient case mix, teaching domains and time criteria.

Eighty-three NP shifts and 711 patient encounters were evaluated by 21 EP preceptors. The NP saw a median of 8 patients per shift. In 43% of encounters, NP care was AEEPC. Highest AEEPC rates were found in the patient follow-up categories general follow-up (55.4%), diagnostic imaging (91.7%) and microbiology laboratory results (87.6%). NP scores over 50% were also seen for lacerations (63.6%) and isolated sore throats (53%). With teaching, NP performance improved over time.

With the exception of follow up–related complaints, simple lacerations and isolated sore throats, NP care differed substantially from EP care. Although NPs with extensive emergency experience and training might ultimately be able to function as autonomous ED care providers, Canadian EDs currently developing job descriptions for emergency NPs should focus on a model of collaborative practice with EPs.