How to Stop the Bleed: First Care Provider model for developing public trauma response beyond basic hemorrhage control

INTRODUCTION: Since 2013, the First Care Provider (FCP) model has successfully educated the non-medical population on how to recognize life-threatening injuries and perform interventions recommended by the Committee for Tactical Emergency Casualty Care (C-TECC) and the Hartford Consensus in the disaster setting. Recent programs, such as the federal Stop The Bleed campaign, have placed the emphasis of public training on hemorrhage control. However, recent attacks demonstrate that access to wounded, recognition of injury, and rapid evacuation are equally as important as hemorrhage control in minimizing mortality. To date, no training programs have produced a validated study with regard to training a community population in these necessary principles of disaster response. METHODS: In our study, we created a reproducible community training model for implementation into prehospital systems. Two matched demographic groups were chosen and divided into trained and untrained groups. The trained group was taught the FCP curriculum, which the Department of Homeland Security recognizes as a Stop the Bleed program, while the untrained group received no instruction. Both groups then participated in a simulated mass casualty event, which required evaluation of multiple victims with varying degree of injury, particularly a patient with an arterial bleed and a patient with an airway obstruction. RESULTS: The objective measures in comparing the two groups were the time elapse until their first action was taken (T1A) and time to their solution of the simulation (TtS). We compared their times using one-sided t-test to demonstrate their responses were not due to chance alone. At the arterial bleed simulation, the T1A for the trained and untrained groups, respectively, were 34.75 seconds and 111 seconds (p-value = .1064), while the TtS were 3 minutes and 33 seconds in the trained group and eight minutes in the untrained groups (physiologic cutoff) (p-value = .0014). At the airway obstruction simulation, the T1A for the trained and untrained groups, respectively, were 20.5 seconds and 43 seconds (p-value = .1064), while the TtS were 32.6 seconds in the trained group and 7 minutes and 3 seconds in the untrained group (p-value = .0087). Simulation values for recently graduated nursing students and a local fire department engine company (emergency medical services [EMS]) were also given for reference. The trained group\u27s results mirrored times of EMS. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates an effective training model to civilian trauma response, while adhering to established recommendations. We offer our model as a potential solution for accomplishing the Stop The Bleed mission while advancing the potential of public disaster response

Anesthesia advanced circulatory life support

The constellation of advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) events, such as gas embolism, local anesthetic overdose, and spinal bradycardia, in the perioperative setting differs from events in the pre-hospital arena. As a result, modification of traditional ACLS protocols allows for more specific etiology-based resuscitation. Perioperative arrests are both uncommon and heterogeneous and have not been described or studied to the same extent as cardiac arrest in the community. These crises are usually witnessed, frequently anticipated, and involve a rescuer physician with knowledge of the patient's comorbidities and coexisting anesthetic or surgically related pathophysiology. When the health care provider identifies the probable cause of arrest, the practitioner has the ability to initiate medical management rapidly. Recommendations for management must be predicated on expert opinion and physiological understanding rather than on the standards currently being used in the generation of ACLS protocols in the community. Adapting ACLS algorithms and considering the differential diagnoses of these perioperative events may prevent cardiac arrest

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

How to Stop the Bleed: First Care Provider Model for Developing Public Trauma Response Beyond Basic Hemorrhage Control

Introduction: Since 2013, the First Care Provider (FCP) model has successfully educated the non-medical population on how to recognize life-threatening injuries and perform interventions recommended by the Committee for Tactical Emergency Casualty Care (C-TECC) and the Hartford Consensus in the disaster setting. Recent programs, such as the federal “Stop The Bleed” campaign, have placed the emphasis of public training on hemorrhage control. However, recent attacks demonstrate that access to wounded, recognition of injury, and rapid evacuation are equally as important as hemorrhage control in minimizing mortality. To date, no training programs have produced a validated study with regard to training a community population in these necessary principles of disaster response.Methods: In our study, we created a reproducible community training model for implementation into prehospital systems. Two matched demographic groups were chosen and divided into “trained” and “untrained” groups. The trained group was taught the FCP curriculum, which the Department of Homeland Security recognizes as a Stop the Bleed program, while the untrained group received no instruction. Both groups then participated in a simulated mass casualty event, which required evaluation of multiple victims with varying degree of injury, particularly a patient with an arterial bleed and a patient with an airway obstruction.Results: The objective measures in comparing the two groups were the time elapse until their first action was taken (T1A) and time to their solution of the simulation (TtS). We compared their times using one-sided t-test to demonstrate their responses were not due to chance alone. At the arterial bleed simulation, the T1A for the trained and untrained groups, respectively, were 34.75 seconds and 111 seconds (p-value = .1064), while the TtS were 3 minutes and 33 seconds in the trained group and eight minutes in the untrained groups (physiologic cutoff) (p-value = .0014). At the airway obstruction simulation, the T1A for the trained and untrained groups, respectively, were 20.5 seconds and 43 seconds (p-value = .1064), while the TtS were 32.6 seconds in the trained group and 7 minutes and 3 seconds in the untrained group (p-value = .0087). Simulation values for recently graduated nursing students and a local fire department engine company (emergency medical services [EMS]) were also given for reference. The trained group’s results mirrored times of EMS.Conclusion: This study demonstrates an effective training model to civilian trauma response, while adhering to established recommendations. We offer our model as a potential solution for accomplishing the Stop The Bleed mission while advancing the potential of public disaster response.&nbsp

Does Platelet Administration Affect Mortality in Elderly Head-Injured Patients Taking Antiplatelet Medications?

A significant portion of patients sustaining traumatic brain injury (TBI) take antiplatelet medications (aspirin or clopidogrel), which have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In an attempt to alleviate the risk of increased bleeding, platelet transfusion has become standard practice in some institutions. This study was designed to determine if platelet transfusion reduces mortality in patients with TBI on antiplatelet medications. Databases from two Level I trauma centers were reviewed. Patients with TBI 50 years of age or older with documented preinjury use of clopidogrel or aspirin were included in our cohort. Patients who received platelet transfusions were compared with those who did not to assess outcome differences between them. Demographics and other patient characteristics abstracted included Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Scale, hospital length of stay, and warfarin use. Three hundred twenty-eight patients comprised the study group. Of these patients, 166 received platelet transfusion and 162 patients did not. Patients who received platelets had a mortality rate of 17.5 per cent (29 of 166), whereas those who did not receive platelets had a mortality rate of 16.7 per cent (27 of 162) (P = 0.85). Transfusion of platelets in patients with TBI using antiplatelet therapy did not reduce mortality

Does Platelet Administration Affect Mortality in Elderly Head-Injured Patients Taking Antiplatelet Medications?

A significant portion of patients sustaining traumatic brain injury (TBI) take antiplatelet medications (aspirin or clopidogrel), which have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In an attempt to alleviate the risk of increased bleeding, platelet transfusion has become standard practice in some institutions. This study was designed to determine if platelet transfusion reduces mortality in patients with TBI on antiplatelet medications. Databases from two Level I trauma centers were reviewed. Patients with TBI 50 years of age or older with documented preinjury use of clopidogrel or aspirin were included in our cohort. Patients who received platelet transfusions were compared with those who did not to assess outcome differences between them. Demographics and other patient characteristics abstracted included Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Scale, hospital length of stay, and warfarin use. Three hundred twenty-eight patients comprised the study group. Of these patients, 166 received platelet transfusion and 162 patients did not. Patients who received platelets had a mortality rate of 17.5 per cent (29 of 166), whereas those who did not receive platelets had a mortality rate of 16.7 per cent (27 of 162) (P = 0.85). Transfusion of platelets in patients with TBI using antiplatelet therapy did not reduce mortality

Does Platelet Administration Affect Mortality in Elderly Head-Injured Patients Taking Antiplatelet Medications?

A significant portion of patients sustaining traumatic brain injury (TBI) take antiplatelet medications (aspirin or clopidogrel), which have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In an attempt to alleviate the risk of increased bleeding, platelet transfusion has become standard practice in some institutions. This study was designed to determine if platelet transfusion reduces mortality in patients with TBI on antiplatelet medications. Databases from two Level I trauma centers were reviewed. Patients with TBI 50 years of age or older with documented preinjury use of clopidogrel or aspirin were included in our cohort. Patients who received platelet transfusions were compared with those who did not to assess outcome differences between them. Demographics and other patient characteristics abstracted included Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Scale, hospital length of stay, and warfarin use. Three hundred twenty-eight patients comprised the study group. Of these patients, 166 received platelet transfusion and 162 patients did not. Patients who received platelets had a mortality rate of 17.5 per cent (29 of 166), whereas those who did not receive platelets had a mortality rate of 16.7 per cent (27 of 162) (P = 0.85). Transfusion of platelets in patients with TBI using antiplatelet therapy did not reduce mortality

Does Platelet Administration Affect Mortality in Elderly Head-Injured Patients Taking Antiplatelet Medications?

A significant portion of patients sustaining traumatic brain injury (TBI) take antiplatelet medications (aspirin or clopidogrel), which have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In an attempt to alleviate the risk of increased bleeding, platelet transfusion has become standard practice in some institutions. This study was designed to determine if platelet transfusion reduces mortality in patients with TBI on antiplatelet medications. Databases from two Level I trauma centers were reviewed. Patients with TBI 50 years of age or older with documented preinjury use of clopidogrel or aspirin were included in our cohort. Patients who received platelet transfusions were compared with those who did not to assess outcome differences between them. Demographics and other patient characteristics abstracted included Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Scale, hospital length of stay, and warfarin use. Three hundred twenty-eight patients comprised the study group. Of these patients, 166 received platelet transfusion and 162 patients did not. Patients who received platelets had a mortality rate of 17.5 per cent (29 of 166), whereas those who did not receive platelets had a mortality rate of 16.7 per cent (27 of 162) (P = 0.85). Transfusion of platelets in patients with TBI using antiplatelet therapy did not reduce mortality