Suppr超能文献

分析紧急医疗服务治疗间隔的重要性。

Importance of Analyzing Intervals to Emergency Medical Service Treatments.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Health, Richmond, Virginia.

Richmond Ambulance Authority, Richmond, Virginia.

出版信息

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2023;27(7):927-933. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2022.2107124. Epub 2022 Aug 12.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although most US emergency medical services (EMS) systems collect time-to-treatment data in their electronic prehospital patient care reports (PCRs), analysis of these data seldom appears in publications. We believe EMS agencies should routinely analyze the initial time-to-treatment data for various potentially life-threatening conditions. This not only assures that protocol-required treatments have been provided but can discover avoidable delays and drive protocol/treatment priority change. Our study purpose was to analyze the interval from 9-1-1 call receipt until the first administration of naloxone to adult opioid overdose victims to demonstrate the quality assurance importance of analyzing time-to-treatment data.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of intervals from 9-1-1 call receipt to initial naloxone treatment in adult opioid overdose victims. We excluded victims <18 years of age and cases where a bystander, police, or a health care worker gave naloxone before EMS arrival. We compared data collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to determine its effect on the analysis.

RESULTS

The mean patient age of 582 opioid overdose victims was 40.7 years [95% CI 39.6, 41.8] with 405 males (69.6%). EMS units' scene arrival was 6.7 minutes from the 9-1-1 call receipt. It took 1.8 minutes to reach the victim, and 8.6 additional minutes to administer the first naloxone regardless of administration route (70.4% intravenous, 26.1% intranasal, 2.7% intraosseous, 0.7% intramuscular). EMS personnel administered the first naloxone 17.1 minutes after the 9-1-1 call receipt, with 50.3% of the delay occurring after patient contact. There was no statistically significant difference in the times-to-treatment before vs. during the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

The prepandemic interval from 9-1-1 call receipt until initial EMS administration of naloxone was substantial and did not change significantly during COVID-19. Our findings exemplify why EMS agencies should analyze initial time-to-treatment data, especially for life-threatening conditions, beyond assuring that protocol-required treatments have been provided. Based on our analysis, fire department crews now carry intranasal naloxone, and intranasal naloxone is given to "impaired" opioid overdose victims the first-arriving fire department or EMS personnel. We continue to collect data on intervals-to-treatment prospectively and monitor our critical process/treatment intervals using the plan-do-study-act model to improve our process/carry out change, and publish our results in a future publication.

摘要

背景

尽管大多数美国急救医疗服务(EMS)系统在其电子院前患者护理报告(PCR)中收集治疗时间数据,但这些数据的分析很少出现在出版物中。我们认为 EMS 机构应该定期分析各种潜在危及生命的情况的初始治疗时间。这不仅可以确保已提供协议规定的治疗,还可以发现可避免的延迟并推动协议/治疗优先级的改变。我们的研究目的是分析从 9-1-1 电话接听至成人阿片类药物过量受害者首次给予纳洛酮的间隔时间,以展示分析治疗时间数据的质量保证重要性。

方法

对成人阿片类药物过量受害者从 9-1-1 电话接听至首次给予纳洛酮的间隔时间进行回顾性分析。我们排除了年龄<18 岁的受害者和在 EMS 到达之前由旁观者、警察或医疗保健工作者给予纳洛酮的病例。我们比较了 COVID-19 大流行前后收集的数据,以确定其对分析的影响。

结果

582 名阿片类药物过量受害者的平均患者年龄为 40.7 岁[95%置信区间(CI)39.6,41.8],其中 405 名男性(69.6%)。EMS 单位从 9-1-1 电话接听至现场到达用时 6.7 分钟。到达受害者需要 1.8 分钟,无论给药途径如何,给予首剂纳洛酮都需要额外 8.6 分钟(70.4%静脉内,26.1%鼻内,2.7%骨内,0.7%肌内)。EMS 人员在接到 9-1-1 电话后 17.1 分钟给予首剂纳洛酮,其中 50.3%的延迟发生在与患者接触之后。在大流行前后,治疗时间无统计学显著差异。

结论

从 9-1-1 电话接听至最初 EMS 给予纳洛酮的时间在大流行前就已经很长,并且在 COVID-19 期间没有显著变化。我们的研究结果证明了为什么 EMS 机构应该分析初始治疗时间数据,尤其是对于危及生命的情况,而不仅仅是确保提供了协议规定的治疗。根据我们的分析,消防部门人员现在携带鼻内纳洛酮,并且对“意识不清”的阿片类药物过量受害者,第一到达的消防部门或 EMS 人员给予鼻内纳洛酮。我们继续前瞻性地收集治疗时间间隔数据,并使用计划-执行-研究-行动模型监测我们的关键流程/治疗间隔,以改进我们的流程/实施变更,并在未来的出版物中发布我们的结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验