2 research outputs found

    Use of a Motorlance to Deliver Emergency Medical Services; a Prospective Cross Sectional Study

    Get PDF
    Introduction: Access time to patients with critical or emergent situations outside the hospital is a critical factor that affects both severity of injury and survival. This study aimed to compare the access time to the scene of an emergency situation between a traditional ambulance and motorlance. Methods: This prospective cross sectional study was conducted on all users of emergency call, Srinagarind Hospital, Thailand, from June to December 2018, who received a registration number from the command center. Results: 504 emergency-service operations were examined over a six-month period, 252 (50%) of which were carried out by motorlance. The mean activation time for motorlance and ambulance were 0.57 ± 0.22 minutes and 1.11 ± 0.18 minutes, respectively (p<0.001). Mean response time for motorlance was significantly lower (5.57 ± 1.21 versus 7.29 ± 1.32 minutes; p < 0.001). The response times during 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. were 5.26 ± 1.11 minutes for motorlance and 7.15 ± 1.39 minutes for ambulance (p < 0.001). These measures for night time (6 p.m. to 6 a.m.) were 5.58 ± 1.21 minutes and 8.01 ± 1.30 minutes, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean automated external defibrillator (AED) waiting time for motorlance and ambulance were 5.26 ± 2.36 minutes and 9.24 ± 3.30 minutes, respectively (p = 0.012). The survival rate of patients after AED use in motorlance and ambulance was 80% versus 37.5%; p<0.001. Conclusion: Emergency service delivery by motorlance had lower mean activation time, response time, AED time, and mortality rate of cardiac arrest patients compared to ambulance. It seems that motorlance could be considered as an effective and applicable device in emergency medical service delivery, especially in crowded cities with heavy traffic

    Predictors of Appropriate Antibiotic Use in Bacteremia Patients Presenting at the Emergency Department

    No full text
    Sepsis is a condition that requires appropriate antibiotic treatment at the emergency department (ED). Most previous studies conducted on inappropriate antibiotic use at the ED were conducted in developed countries with a low percentage of sepsis. This study aimed to find additional clinical predictors for appropriate antibiotic use in bacteremia patients presenting at the ED from a developing country, in which there is a higher proportion of patients with sepsis. We included adult patients who presented at the ED with clinical suspicion of infection and bacteremia. Patients allocated to the appropriate antibiotic group were those in whom the prescribed antibiotic was sensitive to the pathogen. Predictors and outcomes of appropriate antibiotic use were analyzed. A total of 3133 patients who met the study criteria presented at the ED during the study period. Of those, 271 patients were diagnosed with bacteremia, 48 of whom (17.71%) received inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions. Only pulse rate was an independent factor for appropriate antibiotic treatment, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.019 (95% CI of 1.001, 1.036). In terms of clinical outcomes, the inappropriate antibiotic group had higher proportions of 28-day mortality (29.17% vs. 25.25%; p-value = 0.022) and longer hospitalization (14 vs. 9 days; p-value = 0.003). This study found that inappropriate antibiotics were prescribed in 17% of bacteremia patients presenting at the ED and that high pulse rate was an indicator for appropriate antibiotic prescription. Patients with inappropriate antibiotic administration had longer hospitalization and higher 28-day mortality than those who received appropriate antibiotic treatment
    corecore