Glober Nancy, Hamilton Jacob, Montelauro Nicholas, Ulintz Alex, Arkins Thomas, Supples Michael, Liao Mark, O'Donnell Daniel, Faris Greg
Department of Emergency Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Des Moines University School of Medicine, Des Moines, Iowa.
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2023;27(3):315-320. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2022.2086652. Epub 2022 Jun 22.
Our primary goal was to evaluate safety of a new emergency medical services (EMS) protocol directing non-transport of low-acuity patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.
We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all patients in Marion County, Indiana, from March 23, 2020 to May 25, 2020 for whom a novel non-transport protocol was used by EMS for patients with low-acuity COVID-19 symptoms. We assessed paramedic compliance with the protocol to determine numbers and types of deviations. We further reviewed a statewide health information exchange database to identify any patients with emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, or death within 30 days of the EMS non-transport. For ED and hospital visits, we collected ED or admission diagnoses to determine if the etiologies were COVID-related.
Between March 24, 2020 and May 25, 2020, 222 patients were documented as "Treated, Released (per protocol)." The protocol was correctly applied 144 times (64.8%). The other 78 times, although the EMS clinicians documented use of the protocol, it was not actually used (e.g., another protocol such as "no medical emergency" was used). Of the 144 patients for whom the protocol was used, in 55 cases (38.2%), the clinicians documented patient factors that should have contraindicated use of the protocol (e.g., chest pain, past medical history of asthma). The protocol was applied 5 times (3.5%) in pediatric patients. Two patients were admitted to the hospital within 72 hours of incorrect application of the protocol; both were for COVID-related complaints. Two patients were admitted to the hospital within 72 hours of correct protocol use; one was for a COVID-related complaint.
In this case series, paramedics demonstrated large deviations from the novel non-transport protocol. Several patients were admitted to the hospital within 72 hours of non-transport both when the protocol was used correctly, and when it was used incorrectly.
我们的主要目标是评估一项新的紧急医疗服务(EMS)方案在新冠疫情期间指导对低 acuity 患者不进行转运的安全性。
我们对 2020 年 3 月 23 日至 2020 年 5 月 25 日期间印第安纳州马里恩县所有使用新型非转运方案的低 acuity 新冠症状患者进行了回顾性队列分析。我们评估护理人员对该方案的依从性,以确定偏差的数量和类型。我们进一步查阅了全州范围的健康信息交换数据库,以识别在 EMS 非转运后 30 天内有急诊科(ED)就诊、住院或死亡的任何患者。对于 ED 和住院就诊,我们收集 ED 或入院诊断以确定病因是否与新冠相关。
在 2020 年 3 月 24 日至 2020 年 5 月 25 日期间,有 222 名患者被记录为“已治疗,已出院(按方案)”。该方案正确应用了 144 次(64.8%)。另外 78 次,尽管 EMS 临床医生记录使用了该方案,但实际上并未使用(例如,使用了另一种方案,如“无医疗紧急情况”)。在使用该方案的 144 名患者中,有 55 例(38.2%)临床医生记录了本应禁忌使用该方案的患者因素(例如,胸痛、哮喘既往病史)。该方案在儿科患者中应用了 5 次(3.5%)。在方案应用错误后的 72 小时内,有 2 名患者入院;两人均因与新冠相关的主诉入院。在方案正确使用后的 72 小时内,有 2 名患者入院;其中 1 人因与新冠相关的主诉入院。
在这个病例系列中,护理人员对新型非转运方案的偏差很大。在方案正确使用和错误使用的情况下,都有几名患者在非转运后 72 小时内入院。