Biomedical subjects

G C Wydro

Publications and source records attributed to G C Wydro.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

Physician field response: a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the availability, scope of practice, and training of physician field response (PFR) units for emergency medical services (EMS) systems in the United States. METHODS: The physician medical directors of EMS systems in the 125 most populous U.S. cities were surveyed by mail, with a second mailing and phone follow-up to nonresponders. In cities that listed multiple services, a survey was sent to each. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight surveys were mailed, and 121 responses were received (72%), representing 109 of the 125 cities (87%). Seventy-seven cities (71%) reported having no PFR capability. Of the 32 (29%) with some type of PFR, two reported having a dedicated field response unit, while 30 had an "on-call" system from the hospital or home. Staffing patterns were highly variable, with no dominant pattern. The number of annual PFR responses ranged from 0 to 10,000 (median 15, IQR 3-200). All systems reported that their PFR unit was well accepted by EMS providers. The following scope-of-practice items were reported (n = 30): physician triage, 30 teams (94%); on-scene medical direction, 14 (47%); amputation, six (20%); tube thoracostomy, 12 (40%); and blood administration, 29 (97%). The following training requirements for physician team members were reported (n = 32): incident command system, 15 (47%); emergency vehicle operations, 12 (38%); hazardous materials, 13 (41%); vehicle rescue/extrication, seven (22%); confined space medicine, four (13%); and none 12 (38%). CONCLUSION: There is a wide variability in the availability, training, and scope of practice of PFR units across the country. No standardization or trends could be detected.

Clinical Competence↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Termination of resuscitation in the prehospital setting for adult patients suffering nontraumatic cardiac arrest. National Association of EMS Physicians Standards and Clinical Practice Committee.

The National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) supports out-of-hospital termination of resuscitation for adult, nontraumatic cardiac arrest patients who have not responded to full resuscitative efforts. The following factors should be considered in establishing termination of resuscitation protocols: 1) Termination of resuscitation may be considered for any adult patient who suffers sudden cardiac death that is likely to be medical. 2) Unwitnessed cardiac arrest with delayed initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) beyond 6 minutes and delayed defibrillation beyond 8 minutes has a poor prognosis. 3) In the absence of "do not resuscitate" or advanced directives, a full resuscitative effort including CPR, definitive airway management, medication administration, defibrillation if necessary, and at least 20 minutes of treatment following Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) guidelines should be performed prior to declaring the patient dead. 4) A patient whose rhythm changes to, or remains in, ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia should have continued resuscitative efforts. Patients in asystole or pulseless electrical activity should be strongly considered for out-of-hospital termination of resuscitation. 5) Logistic factors should be considered, such as collapse in a public place, family wishes, and safety of the crew and public. 6) Online medical direction should be established prior to termination of resuscitation. The decision to terminate efforts should be a consensus between the on-scene paramedic and the online physician. 7) The on-scene providers and family should have access to resources, such as clergy, crisis workers, and social workers. 8) Quality review is necessary to ensure appropriate application of the termination protocol, law enforcement notification, medical examiner or coroner involvement, and family counseling.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Can basic life support personnel safely determine that advanced life support is not needed?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether firefighter/emergency medical technicians-basic (FF/EMT-Bs) staffing basic life support (BLS) ambulances in a two-tiered emergency medical services (EMS) system can safely determine when advanced life support (ALS) is not needed. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study conducted in two academic emergency departments (EDs) receiving patients from a large urban fire-based EMS system. Runs were studied to which ALS and BLS ambulances were simultaneously dispatched, with the patient transported by the BLS unit. Prospectively established criteria for potential need for ALS were used to determine whether the FF/EMT-B's decision to cancel the ALS unit was safe, and simple outcomes (admission rate, length of stay, mortality) were examined. In the system studied, BLS crews may cancel responding ALS units at their discretion; there are no protocols or medical criteria for cancellation. RESULTS: A convenience sample of 69 cases was collected. In 52 cases (75%), the BLS providers indicated that they cancelled the responding ALS unit because they did not feel ALS was needed. Of these, 40 (77%) met study criteria for ALS: 39 had potentially serious chief complaints, nine had abnormal vital signs, and ten had physical exam findings that warranted ALS. Forty-five (87%) received an intervention immediately upon ED arrival that could have been provided in the field by an ALS unit, and 16 (31%) were admitted, with a median length of stay of 3.3 days (range 1.1-73.4 days). One patient died. CONCLUSION: Firefighter/EMT-Bs, working without protocols or medical criteria, cannot always safely determine which patients may require ALS intervention.

Academic Medical Centers↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Legislative and regulatory description of EMS medical direction: a survey of states.

OBJECTIVE: To assess regulatory trends in EMS medical direction by examining state EMS legislation and regulations, and legal qualifications for medical direction. METHODS: A two-page survey was mailed to all 50 state EMS directors, with a repeat mailing to nonresponders and telephone follow-up as needed. Copies of EMS legislation and regulations were requested to assist in the interpretation of answers to survey questions. The questions focused on two physician roles in the oversight of the practice of paramedics; off-line ALS service medical director (ASMD) and on-line medical command (OLMC). RESULTS: Thirty-nine surveys were returned (78%). Only one state (IL) requires that ASMDs be board-certified in emergency medicine. Thirteen others (33%) permit physicians with primary care specialization or various ACLS/ATLS certifications to serve as ASMDs. Twenty-two states (56%) require only that the ASMD be a physician; three states (8%) have no requirements at all. Eight states (21%) have no requirements for personnel providing OLMC, and another 25 (64%) require only physician licensure. Six states (15%) require various ACLS/ATLS certifications. Several states do not differentiate between the two physician roles. Twenty-four states (62%) provide some type of Good Samaritan protection for medical direction, but in two of these only unpaid medical directors are protected. CONCLUSIONS: There is tremendous variation in regulatory requirements for physician participation in EMS medical direction activities at the ALS level. Few states have specific training or background requirements for the provision of OLMC, and a requirement for board certification in emergency medicine is the exception, not the rule.

Certification↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Current practice in clinical cervical spinal clearance: implication for EMS.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the practice of clinically "clearing" the cervical spine (c-spine) of trauma patients brought to the ED by EMS with cervical immobilization in place, and to examine developing trends in prehospital c-spine clearance. METHODS: A 12-question survey form was mailed to the physician medical directors of 300 randomly selected EDs. Questions examined ED clinical clearance practices, EMS clearance protocols and research, and attitudes toward prehospital clearance. Estimated clinical clearance rates were requested. RESULTS: A total of 173 surveys were returned (58%). At 21 hospitals (12%), c-spine films are obtained for all immobilized trauma patients; clinical clearance is never attempted. Of the remaining 151 hospitals, on average, clinical clearance is attempted for 65.5% of these patients (range 3-100%, interquartile range 50-100%) and is successful (films are not obtained) for 53.7% of attempts (range 0-100%, interquartile range 35-75%). No differences exist in either attempt rate or success rate between trauma centers and non-trauma centers, or between academic/university hospitals, community teaching hospitals, and community non-teaching hospitals (t-test or ANOVA, p > 0.05). Seventy-two respondents (42%) reported significant variation in clinical clearance practice patterns among their ED physicians. Seventy-three respondents (42%) feel that EMS providers should immobilize all trauma patients, while 99 (57%) feel it is reasonable for trained EMS providers to attempt clinical clearance on low-risk trauma patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is tremendous variation in the ED practice of clinically clearing cervical spines. This, and a lack of support from many ED directors, may hinder attempts at development of research and standardized protocols for pre-hospital c-spine clearance.

Algorithms↗