Use and impact of the prehospital 12-lead ECG in the primary PCI era (PHECG2) : protocol for a mixed-method study

Introduction Use of the prehospital 12-lead ECG (PHECG) is recommended in patients presenting to emergency medical services (EMS) with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Prior research found that although PHECG use was associated with improved 30-day survival, a third of patients (typically women, the elderly and those with comorbidities) under EMS care did not receive a PHECG. The overall aim of the PHECG2 study is to update evidence on care and outcomes for patients eligible for PHECG, specifically addressing the following research questions: (1) Is there a difference in 30-day mortality, and in reperfusion rate, between those who do and those who do not receive PHECG? (2) Has the proportion of eligible patients who receive PHECG changed since the introduction of primary percutaneous coronary intervention networks? (3) Are patients that receive PHECG different from those that do not in terms of social and demographic factors, or prehospital clinical presentation? (4) What factors influence EMS clinicians' decisions to perform PHECG? Methods and analysis This is an explanatory, mixed-method study comprising four work packages (WPs). WP1 is a population-based, linked-data analysis of a national ACS registry (Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project). WP2 is a retrospective chart review of patient records from three large regional EMS. WP3 comprises focus groups of EMS personnel. WP4 will synthesise findings from WP1-3 to inform the development of an intervention to increase PHECG uptake. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (ref: 18LO1679). Findings will be disseminated through feedback to participating EMS, conference presentations and publication in peer-reviewed journals

What are emergency ambulance services doing to meet the needs of people who call frequently? A national survey of current practice in the United Kingdom

Background Emergency ambulance services are integral to providing a service for those with unplanned urgent and life-threatening health conditions. However, high use of the service by a small minority of patients is a concern. Our objectives were to describe: service-wide and local policies or pathways for people classified as Frequent Caller; call volume; and results of any audit or evaluation. Method We conducted a national survey of current practice in ambulance services in relation to the management of people who call the emergency ambulance service frequently using a structured questionnaire for completion by email and telephone interview. We analysed responses using a descriptive and thematic approach. Results Twelve of 13 UK ambulance services responded. Most services used nationally agreed definitions for ‘Frequent Caller’, with 600–900 people meeting this classification each month. Service-wide policies were in place, with local variations. Models of care varied from within-service care where calls are flagged in the call centre; contact made with callers; and their General Practitioner (GP) with an aim of discouraging further calls, to case management through cross-service, multi-disciplinary team meetings aiming to resolve callers’ needs. Although data were available related to volume of calls and number of callers meeting the threshold for definition as Frequent Caller, no formal audits or evaluations were reported. Conclusions Ambulance services are under pressure to meet challenging response times for high acuity patients. Tensions are apparent in the provision of care to patients who have complex needs and call frequently. Multi-disciplinary case management approaches may help to provide appropriate care, and reduce demand on emergency services. However, there is currently inadequate evidence to inform commissioning, policy or practice development

Transient ischaemic attack pre-hospital referral feasibility trial (TIER): recruitment and intervention usage

Aims: Early specialist assessment of transient ischaemic attack (TIA) can reduce the risk of stroke and death. This study assessed the feasibility of undertaking a multi-centre randomised trial to evaluate clinical and cost effectiveness of referral of patients attended by emergency ambulance paramedics with low-risk TIA directly to specialist TIA clinics for early review. Methods: We developed a protocol and referral pathway for paramedics to assess and refer patients directly to a TIA clinic, and administer aspirin. We randomly allocated volunteer paramedics to intervention or control groups. Intervention paramedics were trained to deliver the intervention during the patient recruitment period. Control paramedics continued to deliver care as usual. Patients with TIA were identified from hospital records. We aimed to recruit 86 patients and pre-defined progression criteria related to feasibility of intervention delivery and trial methods. Results: Development and recruitment phases are complete, with outcome follow-up ongoing. Of 134 (66%) paramedics, 89 participated in TIER. Of 1377 patients attended by trial paramedics during the patient recruitment period, 53 (3.8%) were identified as eligible for trial inclusion. Of 36 (8%) patients attended by intervention paramedics, three were referred to the TIA clinic. Of the others, only one appeared to be a missed referral; in one case there was no pre-hospital record of TIA; one was attended by a paramedic who was not TIER trained; one patient record was missing; and all others were recorded with contra-indications: FAST positive (n = 13); ABCD2 score > 3 (n = 5); already taking warfarin (n = 2); crescendo TIA (n = 1); and other clinical factors (n = 8). Conclusions: Preliminary results indicate challenges in recruitment and low referral rates. The low-risk 999 TIA population suitable for emergency department avoidance may be smaller than previously thought. Further analyses will focus on whether progression criteria for a definitive trial were met, and clinical outcomes from this feasibility trial. Abstract published with permission

Alternative care pathways for patients with low risk tia attended by emergency ambulance: a national survey

Abstract Background Patients presenting to emergency ambulance services with TIA are usually conveyed to the nearest Emergency Department (ED) with subsequent referral to specialist assessment at a TIA clinic within one week if at low risk of stroke. There is the opportunity for paramedics to refer patients with TIA at low risk of recurrent stroke directly to specialist TIA clinic, if such protocols can be shown to be safe and cost effective. We aimed to describe current service developments across the UK for the pre-hospital emergency care of patients with TIA, to inform the development of an intervention for testing. Methods We surveyed all UK Ambulance Trusts (n=13) by email, asking them to identify initiatives related to the management of TIA, and followed up services reporting an alternative TIA pathway by telephone to gather further details. Results Twelve ambulance services responded to our survey. Nine reported that they had no current TIA referral pathway; of these, one had a pathway which was discontinued due to service reconfiguration. Three reported currently using a TIA referral pathway. All (4/4) pathways which had been introduced used the FAST test and ABCD2 tool to screen patients, in line with national guidelines, and classified patients as low risk if the ABCD2 score was 3 or below. All pathways indicated that eligible low-risk TIA patients should be referred by paramedics to specialist care, 2/4 by telephone, and 2/4 by fax. Non-conveyance exclusion criteria varied. Although protocol compliance was audited in an initial pilot in one service, no formal evaluation of effectiveness was reported. Conclusion Several UK ambulance services have introduced referral pathways for low risk TIA patients, avoiding the ED. None have evaluated the safety (subsequent stroke or serious misdiagnosis) or cost effectiveness. A clinical trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of alternative care pathways for patients with suspected TIA presenting to emergency ambulance services is indicated. https://emj.bmj.com/content/34/10/e8.1 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2015-00028

Care pathways for low-risk transient ischaemic attack

Background: In secondary care, the urgency of review for transient ischaemic attack (TIA) has relied upon the use of the ABCD2 score, but this tool is not validated for use by emergency ambulance crews. There is a need to evaluate alternative care pathways for patients who might be eligible for direct referral to TIA clinics without prior conveyance to the emergency department (ED). Aim: The aim of this national survey was to describe current service provision across the UK for pre-hospital emergency care of patients with TIA. Methods: The authors approached all UK Ambulance trusts (n=13) by email, asking them to provide details of TIA patient referral pathways. Findings: Twelve ambulance services responded to the survey and nine reported that they had no current pathway; one had discontinued a pathway because of service reconfiguration; and three were currently using one. All pathways used the ABCD2 tool to screen patients and classified patients as low-risk if the ABCD2 score was 3 or below. Non-conveyance exclusion criteria varied. Although compliance with referral pathways was audited in an initial pilot in one service, no other evaluations of the effectiveness of pathways were reported. Conclusion: A minority of UK ambulance services report introducing referral pathways for low-risk TIA patients, avoiding initial assessment in the ED. Safety, effectiveness and acceptability of such pathways have not been evaluated to date. Abstract published with permissio

The transient ischaemic attack 999 emergency referral (tier) feasibility trial: development of a complex intervention

Background Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA) is a neurologic event with symptom resolution within 24 hours. Early specialist assessment of TIA reduces risk of stroke and death. NICE (2008) recommends patients with TIA are seen in specialist clinics within 24 hours (if high risk) and seven days (if low risk). We aimed to develop a complex intervention for patients with low risk TIA presenting to the emergency ambulance service. The intervention was then to be used in the TIER feasibility trial, in line with the MRC guidance on staged development and evaluation of complex interventions. Methods We conducted three interrelated activities to produce the TIER intervention: • Survey of UK Ambulance Services (n=13) to gather information about TIA pathways already in use • Scoping review of literature describing prehospital care of patients with TIA • Synthesis of data and definition of the intervention by specialist panel of: paramedics; ED and stroke consultants; service users; ambulance service managers. Results The panel defined the TIER intervention to include: 1. Protocol for paramedics to assess patients presenting with TIA and identify and refer low risk patients for prompt (<7 day) specialist review at TIA clinic 2. Patient Group Directive and information pack to allow paramedic administration of aspirin to patients left at home with referral to TIA clinic 3. Referral process via clinical desk in ambulance control room 4. Training package for paramedics 5. Agreement with TIA clinic service provider to ensure rapid review of referred patients Conclusion We followed MRC guidance to develop a clinical intervention which assesses and refers low risk TIA patients requesting 999 care. We will test feasibility of implementing and evaluating this in the TIER feasibility trial. We will then develop a fully powered randomised multicentre trial, if findings indicate this is appropriate. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0

Racial disparities in the use of outpatient mastectomy

Background: Racial disparities exist within many domains of cancer care. This study was designed to identify differences in the use of outpatient mastectomy(OM) based on patient race. Methods: We identified patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File (during the years 2007-2010) who underwent a mastectomy. The association between mastectomy setting, patient race, patient age, American Society of Anesthesiology physical status classification, functional status, mastectomy type, and hospital teaching status was determined using the chi-square test. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was developed to assess the relative odds of undergoing OM by race, with adjustment for potential confounders. Results: We identified 47,318 patients enrolled in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File who underwent a mastectomy during the study time frame. More than half (62.6%) of mastectomies were performed in the outpatient setting. All racial minorities had lower rates of OM, with 63.8% of white patients; 59.1% of black patients; 57.4% of Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander patients; and 43.9% of American Indian or Alaska Native patients undergoing OM (P < 0.001). After adjustment for multiple confounders, black patients, American Indian or Alaska Native patients, and those of unknown race were all less likely to undergo OM (odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.93; OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.41-0.72; and OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.64-0.76, respectively) compared with white patients. Conclusions: Disparities exist in the use of OM among racial minorities. Further studies are needed to identify the role of cultural preferences, physician attitudes, and insurer encouragements that may influence these patterns of use. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved