Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundScotland has three prehospital critical care teams (PHCCTs) providing enhanced care support to a usually paramedic-delivered ambulance service. The effect of the PHCCTs on patient survival following trauma in Scotland is not currently known nationally.MethodsNational registry-based retrospective cohort study using 2011–2016 data from the Scottish Trauma Audit Group. 30-day mortality was compared between groups after multivariate analysis to account for confounding variables.ResultsOur data set comprised 17 157 patients, with a mean age of 54.7 years and 8206 (57.5%) of male gender. 2877 patients in the registry were excluded due to incomplete data on their level of prehospital care, leaving an eligible group of 14 280. 13 504 injured adults who received care from ambulance clinicians (paramedics or technicians) were compared with 776 whose care included input from a PHCCT. The median Injury Severity Score (ISS) across all eligible patients was 9; 3076 patients (21.5%) met the ISS>15 criterion for major trauma. Patients in the PHCCT cohort were statistically significantly (all p<0.01) more likely to be male; be transported to a prospective Major Trauma Centre; have suffered major trauma; have suffered a severe head injury; be transported by air and be intubated prior to arrival in hospital. Following multivariate analysis, the OR for 30-day mortality for patients seen by a PHCCT was 0.56 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.86, p=0.01).ConclusionPrehospital care provided by a physician-led critical care team was associated with an increased chance of survival at 30 days when compared with care provided by ambulance clinicians.

BackgroundHelicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) are a useful means of reducing inequity of access to specialist emergency care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the variations in HEMS provision across Europe, in order to inform the further development of emergency care systems.MethodsThis is a survey of primary HEMS in the 32 countries of the European Economic Area and Switzerland. Information was gathered through internet searches (May to September 2016), and by emailing service providers, requesting verification and completion of data (September 2016 to July 2017). HEMS provision was calculated as helicopters per million population and per 1000 km2 land area, by day and by night, and per US$10 billion of gross domestic product (GDP), for each country.ResultsIn 2016, the smallest and least prosperous countries had no dedicated HEMS provision. Luxembourg had the highest number of helicopters by area and population, day and night. Alpine countries had high daytime HEMS coverage and Scandinavia had good night-time coverage. Most helicopters carried a doctor. Funding of services varied from public to charitable and private. Most services performed both primary (from the scene) and secondary (interfacility) missions.ConclusionsWithin Europe, there is a large variation in the number of helicopters available for emergency care, regardless of whether assessed with reference to population, land area or GDP. Funding of services varied, and did not seem to be clearly related to the availability of HEMS.

ObjectiveTo compare the mortality and morbidity of traumatically injured patients who received additional prehospital care by a doctor and critical care paramedic enhanced care team (ECT), with those solely treated by a paramedic non-ECT.MethodsA retrospective analysis of Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) data and case note review of all severe trauma cases (Injury Severity Score ≥9) in North East England from 1 January 2014 to 1 December 2017 who were treated by the North East Ambulance Service, the Great North Air Ambulance Service or both. TARN methods were used to calculate the number of unexpected survivors or deaths in each group (W score (Ws)). The Glasgow Outcome Scores were contrasted to evaluate morbidity.ResultsThe ECT group treated 531 patients: there were 17 unexpected survivors and no unexpected deaths. The non-ECT group treated 1202 patients independently: there were no unexpected survivors and 31 unexpected deaths. The proportion of patients requiring critical care interventions differed between the two groups 49% versus 33% (CI for difference 12% to 20%). In the ECT group, the Ws was 3.22 (95% CI 0.79 to 5.64). In the non-ECT group, the Ws was −2.97 (95% CI −1.22 to −4.71). The difference between the Ws was 6.18 (95% CI 3.19 to 9.17). There was no evidence of worse morbidity in the ECT group.ConclusionThis is the first UK ECT service to demonstrate a risk-adjusted mortality benefit in trauma patients with no detriment in morbidity: our results demonstrate an additional 3.22 survivors per 100 severe trauma casualties when treated by an ECT. The authors encourage other ECT services to conduct similar research.

Introduction It is believed that some patients are more likely to use out-of-hours primary care services because of difficulties in accessing in-hours care, but substantial evidence about any such association is missing. Methods We analysed data from 567 049 respondents to the 2011/2012 English General Practice Patient Survey who reported at least one in-hours primary care consultation in the preceding 6 months. Of those respondents, 7% also reported using out-of-hours primary care. We used logistic regression to explore associations between use of out-of-hours primary care and five measures of in-hours access (ease of getting through on the telephone, ability to see a preferred general practitioner, ability to get an urgent or routine appointment and convenience of opening hours). We illustrated the potential for reduction in use of out-of-hours primary care in a model where access to in-hours care was made optimal. Results Worse in-hours access was associated with greater use of out-of-hours primary care for each access factor. In multivariable analysis adjusting for access and patient characteristic variables, worse access was independently associated with increased out-of-hours use for all measures except ease of telephone access. Assuming these associations were causal, we estimated that an 11% relative reduction in use of out-of-hours primary care services in England could be achievable if access to in-hours care were optimal. Conclusions This secondary quantitative analysis provides evidence for an association between difficulty in accessing in-hours care and use of out-of-hours primary care services. The findings can motivate the development of interventions to improve in-hour access.

ObjectivePrehospital emergency amputation is a rare procedure, which may be necessary to free a time-critical patient from entrapment. This study aimed to evaluate four techniques of cadaveric lower limb prehospital emergency amputation.MethodA guillotine amputation of the distal femur was undertaken in fresh frozen self-donated cadavers. A prehospital doctor conducted a surgical amputation with Gigli saw or hacksaw for bone cuts and firefighters carried out the procedure using the reciprocating saw and Holmatro device. The primary outcome measures were time to full amputation and the number of attempts required. The secondary outcomes were observed quality of skin cut, soft tissue cut and CT assessment of the proximal bone. Observers also noted the potential risks to the rescuer or patient during the procedure.ResultsAll techniques completed amputation within 91 s. The reciprocating saw was the quickest technique (22 s) but there was significant blood spattering and continuation of the cut to the surface under the leg. The Holmatro device took less than a minute. The quality of the proximal femur was acceptable with all methods, but 5 cm more proximal soft tissue damage was made by the Holmatro device.ConclusionsEmergency prehospital guillotine amputation of the distal femur can effectively be performed using scalpel and paramedic shears with bone cuts by the Gigli saw or fire service hacksaw. The reciprocating saw could be used to cut bone if no other equipment was available but carried some risks. The Holmatro cutting device is a viable option for a life-threatening entrapment where only firefighters can safely access the patient, but would not be a recommended primary technique for medical staff.

BackgroundCommunity emergency medicine (CEM) aims to bring highly skilled, expert medical care to the patient outside of the traditional ED setting. Currently, there are several different CEM models in existence within the UK and Ireland which confer multiple benefits including provision of a senior clinical decision-maker early in the patient’s journey, frontloading of time-critical interventions, easing pressure on busy EDs and reducing inpatient bed days. This is achieved through increased community-based management supplemented by utilisation of alternative care pathways. This study aimed to undertake a national comparison of CEM services currently in operation.MethodA data collection tool was distributed to CEM services by the Pre-Hospital trainee Operated Research Network in October 2020 which aimed to establish current practice among services in the UK and Ireland. It focused on six key sections: service aims; staffing and training; job tasking and patient selection; funding and vehicles used; equipment and medication; data collection, governance and research activity.ResultsSeven services responded from across England, Wales and Ireland. Similarities were found with the aims of each service, staffing structures and operational times. There were large differences in equipment carried, categories of patient targeted and with governance and research activity.ConclusionWhile some national variations in services are explained by funding and geographical location, this review process revealed several differences in practice under the umbrella term of CEM. A national definition of CEM and its aim, with guidance on scope of practice and measurable outcomes, should be generated to ensure high standard and cost-effective emergency care is delivered in the community.

BackgroundIn this preliminary prospective observational study at four physician-led air rescue centres, the efficacy of the C-MAC (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany), a new portable videolaryngoscope, was evaluated during prehospital emergency endotracheal intubations.Methods80 consecutive patients requiring prehospital emergency intubation, treated by a physician introduced in the use of the C-MAC were enrolled in this study.ResultsIndication for prehospital intubation was trauma in 45 cases (including maxillo-facial trauma in 10 cases), cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 14 cases, and unconsciousness of neurological aetiology and cardiogenic dyspnoea in 21 cases. Forty-nine patients were intubated with a C-MAC blade size 3, and 31 with a C-MAC blade size 4. Median time to successful intubation was 20 (min−max: 5−300) seconds; 63 patients were intubated on the first attempt, 13 on the second and four after more than two attempts. A Cormack-Lehane class 1 view of the glottis was seen in 46 patients, class 2a view in 21, class 2b in eight, class 3 in three and class 4 in two. Six patients could not be intubated with the videolaryngoscopic view, but were successfully intubated at the same attempt using the C-MAC with the direct laryngoscopic view.ConclusionThe C-MAC videolaryngoscope was suitable for prehospital emergency endotracheal intubations with complicated airway conditions, such as maxillo-facial trauma. The option to perform direct laryngoscopy and videolaryngoscopy with the same device appears to be exceptionally important in the prehospital setting.

Objective The quality of medical documentation is integral to audit, clinical governance, education, medico-legal aspects and continuity of patient care. This study aims to investigate the introduction of a dedicated ‘Airway Registry Form’ (ARF) on the quality of documentation in prehospital rapid sequence intubation. Methods A retrospective review and comparison of 96 cases predating the introduction of the ARF and 90 cases immediately following its introduction were performed. Results The introduction of the ARF yielded significant improvement in the recording of selected data points: difficult airway indicators (p<0.0001), Cormack–Lehane grade of laryngoscopy at first attempt (p<0.0001), documentation of confirmation of tracheal intubation with end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring (p=0.015) and recording of intubator's details (p<0.0001). Conclusions This study validates the use of a dedicated ARF for the improvement of documentation and data collection related to prehospital rapid sequence intubation when compared with post-event extraction of data from a generic case-record.

BackgroundEvery day throughout the UK, ambulance services seek medical assistance in providing critically ill or injured patients with pre-hospital care.ObjectiveTo identify the current availability and utilisation of physician-based pre-hospital critical care capability across England, Wales and Northern Ireland.DesignA postal and telephone survey was undertaken between April and December 2009 of all 13 regional NHS ambulance services, 17 air ambulance charities, 34 organisations affiliated to the British Association for Immediate Care and 215 type 1 emergency departments in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The survey focused on the availability and use of physician-based pre-hospital critical care support.ResultsThe response rate was 100%. Although nine NHS ambulance services recorded physician attendance at 6155 incidents, few could quantify doctor availability and utilisation. All but one of the British Association for Immediate Care organisations deployed ‘only when available’ and only 45% of active doctors could provide critical care support. Eleven air ambulance services (65%) operated with a doctor but only 5 (29%) operated 7 days a week. Fifty-nine EDs (27%) had a pre-hospital team but only 5 (2%) had 24 h deployable critical care capability and none were used regularly.ConclusionThere is wide geographical and diurnal variability in availability and utilisation of physician-based pre-hospital critical care support. Only London ambulance service has access to NHS-commissioned 24 h physician-based pre-hospital critical care support. Throughout the rest of the UK, extensive use is made of volunteer doctors and charity sector providers of varying availability and capability.

IntroductionThe use of rapid sequence induction and tracheal intubation (RSI) in the pre-hospital environment is controversial. Currently, it is felt that competence to perform RSI should be defined by skills in anaesthesia not by the primary speciality of a practitioner. This aim of the study was to evaluate the tracheal intubation success rate of doctors drawn from different clinical specialities performing RSI in the pre-hospital environment.MethodRetrospective review of all RSI performed by doctors operating on the Warwickshire and Northamptonshire Air Ambulance over a 5-year period. Tracheal intubation failure rates were calculated and analysed for proportional differences between groups by χ2 and, where appropriate, Fisher's exact test.Results4362 active missions were flown. RSI was performed in 200 cases (4.6%, 3.1/month). Successful intubation occurred in 194 cases, giving a failure rate of 3% (6 cases, 95% CI 0.6 to 5.3%). While no difference in failure rate was observed between emergency department (ED) staff and anaesthetists (2.73% (3/110, 95% CI 0 to 5.7%) vs 0% (0/55, 95% CI 0 to 0%); p=0.55), a significant difference was found when non-ED, non-anaesthetic staff (GP and surgical) were compared to anaesthetists (10.34% (3/29, 95% CI 0 to 21.4%) vs 0%; p=0.04). There was no significant difference associated with seniority of practitioner (p=0.65).ConclusionsNon-anaesthetic practitioners have a higher tracheal intubation failure rate during pre-hospital RSI. This likely reflects a lack of training opportunities and infrequency of clinical experience. Strategies to improve pre-hospital airway management are required.