Biomedical subjects

Eric A Davis

Publications and source records attributed to Eric A Davis.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Description and evaluation of a pilot physician-directed emergency medical services diversion control program.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics and feasibility of a physician-directed ambulance destination-control program to reduce emergency department (ED) overcrowding, as measured by hospital ambulance diversion hours. METHODS: This controlled trial took place in Rochester, New York and included a university hospital and a university-affiliated community hospital. During July 2003, emergency medical services (EMS) providers were asked to call an EMS destination-control physician for patients requesting transport to either hospital. The destination-control physician determined the optimal patient destination by using patient and system variables as well as EMS providers' and patients' input. Program process measures were evaluated to characterize the program. Administrative data were reviewed to compare system characteristics between the intervention program month and a control month. RESULTS: During the intervention month, 2,708 patients were transported to the participating hospitals. EMS providers contacted the destination-control physician for 1,866 (69%) patients. The original destination was changed for 253 (14%) patients. Reasons for redirecting patients included system needs, patient needs, physician affiliation, recent ED or hospital care, patient wishes, and primary care physician wishes. During the intervention month, EMS diversion decreased 190 (41%) hours at the university hospital and 62 (61%) hours at the community hospital, as compared with the control month. CONCLUSIONS: A voluntary, physician-directed destination-control program that directs EMS units to the ED most able to provide appropriate and timely care is feasible. Patients were redirected to maximize continuity of care and optimally use available emergency health care resources. This type of program may be effective in reducing overcrowding.

Ambulances↗

PubMed2004

Patients with head injuries refusing emergency medical services transport.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To characterize patients with head injury who refuse emergency medical services (EMS) transport to an emergency department (ED). To identify predictors of patients with head injury who refuse EMS transport. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: Patients with a head injury cared for by EMS during 2001 were identified. Medical records were abstracted for demographic and clinical information and reasons for refusing transport. Patients accepting transport were compared to those refusing. Reasons for refusing transport were described. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-three patients with head injuries were identified. Sixteen per cent refused EMS transport. Patients refusing transport were more likely to be male, younger and victims of assault and less likely to have lost consciousness. Patients refusing transport often felt they did not need care or could obtain care later. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with head injuries frequently refuse EMS transportation. Individuals accepting care differ significantly from those refusing care. Sufficient awareness of the risk of head injury seems to be lacking among patients.

Adolescent↗

PubMedDate not supplied

An evaluation of paramedics' ability to screen older adults during emergency responses.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the feasibility of using the emergency medical services (EMS) system as a public health provider by having paramedics screen older adults (age >or= 65 years) for influenza immunization status during emergency responses. It also determined the proportion of older-adult EMS patients who lacked an influenza vaccination. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was performed, with medical-record review for patients treated between January 2003 and April 2003. Patients were included if they were age 65 years and older, requested assistance via a 9-1-1 call, and were treated by one of 13 paramedics using a directed medical record. The authors calculated the proportion of patients successfully screened and the proportion who reported being nonimmunized. They also compared the patients screened and not screened by the EMS providers and patients who reported being immunized and reported being nonimmunized. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-eight patients were eligible; the median age was 80 years, 53% were women, 73% were white, and 59% required advanced life support care. Paramedics successfully screened 177 patients (61%; 95% CI, 56-67%). Sixty-five patients (37%; 95% CI, 30-44%) reported being nonimmunized. Failure to screen was associated with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13 or less. Lack of immunization was associated with younger age and female gender. CONCLUSION: Paramedics can screen a majority of older adults for influenza immunization status during emergency responses. Older adult users of EMS reported lacking influenza vaccination at levels similar to national estimates. An EMS-based, paramedic-implemented screening program has the potential to identify older adults at risk for preventable illnesses and to augment traditional screening programs, but additional measures are needed to enhance screening rates.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Validation of using EMS dispatch codes to identify low-acuity patients.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the predictive ability of previously derived emergency medical services (EMS) dispatch codes to identify patients with low-acuity illnesses. METHODS: This prospective descriptive study was conducted in Rochester, New York. An expert panel reviewed and modified a previously derived set of low-priority EMS dispatch codes. Patients assigned these 21 codes between July 2002 and June 2003 were included for further analysis. Dispatch data and level of EMS care were recorded for each dispatch code. The proportion of low-acuity patients (i.e., those who received only basic life support (BLS) care or those who were not transported using lights and sirens) was determined using previously established definitions. Codes were defined as associated with low-acuity patients if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) exceeded 90%. Medical records for patients identified as high-acuity were reviewed to evaluate whether the advanced life support (ALS) level care that was provided had a clinical impact. RESULTS: Emergency medical services cared for 43,602 patients during the study, and 7,540 were dispatched as low-priority. We found that 7,197 (95%; 95% CI: 95-96%) of these patients met low-acuity criteria and that 11 of the evaluated codes were validated, with low-acuity care provided at least 90% of the time. Of the 343 patients identified as high-acuity, 62 (18%; 95% CI: 14-23%) were determined to have received interventions that had a clinical impact. CONCLUSIONS: This study prospectively validates 11 EMS dispatch codes as being associated with low-acuity patients. These codes could be used to triage EMS patients based on dispatch information.

Acute Disease↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Will emergency health care providers respond to mass casualty incidents?

INTRODUCTION: Emergency response plans often call on health care providers to respond to the workplace outside of their normal working pattern. HYPOTHESIS: Providers will report to work during a mass casualty emergency regardless of family duties, type of incident, or availability of treatment. METHODS: Survey of emergency personnel needed to respond to a mass casualty incident. Two scenarios were presented: one involving the release of a nontransmissible biological agent with proven treatment and the other the release of a transmissible biological agent with no treatment. At critical time points, participants were asked whether they would report to work. Additional questions considered the effect of commonly used treatment dissemination methods. RESULTS: A total of 186 surveys were issued and returned. (45 physicians, 29 nurses, 86 EMS personnel, and 20 support staff); 6 were incomplete and excluded. Initial commitment rates were 78%. The highest commitment rate identified was 84% and the lowest was 18%. Any treatment dissemination method excluding providers' family members led to decreases in commitment rate, as did agents identified to be transmissible. CONCLUSIONS: As an event develops, fewer health care providers will report to work and at no time will all providers report when asked. This conclusion may be generalizable to several types of incidents ranging from pandemic influenza to bioterrorism. Identification of the causative agent is a major decision point for providers to return to or stay away from work. Offering on-site treatment of providers' family increases commitment to work. These factors should be considered in emergency planning.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Derivation of emergency medical services dispatch codes associated with low-acuity patients.

OBJECTIVE: To identify emergency medical services (EMS) dispatch codes associated with basic life support (BLS) level of prehospital care, a proxy for low illness acuity. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in an urban city with a single advanced life support level EMS provider. The 911 center was certified in using dispatch protocols from Priority Dispatch Corporation (Salt Lake City, UT). Dispatch data on all transported EMS patients from August 2001 to April 2002 were abstracted. The authors prospectively defined a low-acuity patient as one who received BLS-level care and defined a low-acuity dispatch code as one in which at least 90% of coded patients required only BLS care. For each dispatch code or code group, the authors calculated the fraction of patients who received BLS-level care. For each "A"-level (lowest category) dispatch code group, the fraction of patients receiving BLS-level care was also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 19,332 calls met inclusion criteria and were categorized into 118 dispatch codes or code groups. Twenty-eight codes or code groups with 7,801 patients met the authors' definition of low acuity. Overall, 7,394 patients received only BLS care (94.8%, 95% confidence interval: 94.3%-95.3%). Analysis of "A"-level dispatch code groups found BLS use rates of 52.8% to 99.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Certain dispatch codes are associated with the delivery of BLS-level care, indicating identification of patients likely to be low acuity. These codes are not necessarily "A"-level dispatch codes, which are commonly considered to represent the lowest-acuity patients. Future studies are needed to prospectively validate that these codes do represent low-acuity patients.

Acute Disease↗