McInnis Robert P, Wood Andrew J, Shay Courtney L, Haggart Anna A, Crowe Remle P, Guterman Elan L
University of California, San Francisco, Department of Neurology, San Francisco, California.
Weill Cornell Medical College, Department of Neurology, New York, New York.
West J Emerg Med. 2025 May 18;26(3):549-555. doi: 10.5811/westjem.21266.
Emergency medical dispatch is intended to ensure that emergency medical services (EMS) allocate appropriate resources for the treatment of patients with status epilepticus (SE). However, it is unclear whether dispatch algorithms accurately identify those patients having a seizure-related medical emergency and how dispatch algorithms influence what prehospital resources are allocated for the encounter.
We performed a cross-sectional analysis of prehospital encounters for SE using data from the 2019 ESO Data Collaborative. We included patients who were ≥18 years of age, had an EMS diagnostic impression of SE, and did not have a cardiac arrest. We examined the dispatch-determined complaint designated by the emergency medical dispatch (EMD) code, dispatch-determined level of acuity (A, B, C, D), ambulance response, and training level of the responding prehospital professional.
Of the 18,515 patient encounters for SE with an EMD code, 8,279 (44.9%) were women, and the mean age was 40.0 years (SD 19.7). There were 13,829 (75%) encounters that received a dispatch code for seizures/convulsions and 4,686 (25%) with a dispatch code for a non-seizure-related condition. Among encounters for SE identified by dispatch as seizures/convulsions, 6,412 (46.4%) were designated high acuity, 6,626 (63.6%) were designated low acuity, and the majority received emergent ambulance responses (98.1% among those designated high acuity and 81.8% among those designated low acuity) and an Advanced Life Support-trained responder (93.7% among those designated high acuity and 92.7% among those designated low acuity). Median response times were similar for all acuity levels (9.1, 8.8, 9.1, and 8.3 minutes for A-D, respectively).
Approximately one-fourth of SE cases were categorized as a non-seizure related condition at dispatch, and fewer than half received the highest acuity determinant code. Despite this, dispatch-assigned acuity did not have a strong relationship with the ambulance response or training level of the EMS responder or response time, suggesting that use of dispatch algorithms might be further optimized and highlighting a potential area to improve quality of EMS care.
紧急医疗调度旨在确保紧急医疗服务(EMS)为癫痫持续状态(SE)患者分配适当的资源。然而,尚不清楚调度算法是否能准确识别那些患有与癫痫发作相关的医疗紧急情况的患者,以及调度算法如何影响为此次接诊分配的院前资源。
我们利用2019年ESO数据协作项目的数据,对SE的院前接诊情况进行了横断面分析。我们纳入了年龄≥18岁、EMS诊断印象为SE且未发生心脏骤停的患者。我们检查了由紧急医疗调度(EMD)代码确定的调度投诉、调度确定的 acuity 级别(A、B、C、D)、救护车响应情况以及出诊的院前专业人员的培训水平。
在18515例有EMD代码的SE患者接诊中,8279例(44.9%)为女性,平均年龄为40.0岁(标准差19.7)。有13829例(75%)接诊收到癫痫发作/抽搐的调度代码,4686例(25%)收到与非癫痫发作相关病症的调度代码。在调度确定为癫痫发作/抽搐的SE接诊中,6412例(46.4%)被指定为高 acuity,6626例(63.6%)被指定为低 acuity,大多数患者收到了紧急救护车响应(高 acuity 患者中为98.1%,低 acuity 患者中为81.8%),并且有接受过高级生命支持培训的响应人员(高 acuity 患者中为93.7%,低 acuity 患者中为92.7%)。所有 acuity 级别的中位响应时间相似(A - D级分别为9.1、8.8、9.1和8.3分钟)。
大约四分之一的SE病例在调度时被归类为与非癫痫发作相关的病症,不到一半的病例收到最高 acuity 决定代码。尽管如此,调度分配的 acuity 与救护车响应、EMS响应人员的培训水平或响应时间之间没有很强的关联,这表明调度算法的使用可能需要进一步优化,并突出了一个改善EMS护理质量的潜在领域。