Facilitators and barriers in pain management for trauma patients in the chain of emergency care

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study is to give insight into facilitators and barriers in pain management in trauma patients in the chain of emergency care in the Netherlands. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A qualitative approach was adopted with the use of the implementation Model of Change of Clinical Practice. The chain of emergency care concerned prehospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Emergency Departments (EDs). We included two EMS ambulance services and three EDs and conducted five focus groups and 10 individual interviews. Stakeholders and managers of organisations were interviewed individually. Focus group participants were selected based on availability and general characteristics. Transcripts of the audio recordings and field notes were analysed in consecutive steps, based on thematic content analysis. Each step was independently performed by the researchers, and was discussed afterwards. We analysed differences and similarities supported by software for qualitative analysis MaxQDA. RESULTS: This study identified five concepts as facilitators and barriers in pain management for trauma patients in the chain of emergency care. We described the concepts of knowledge, attitude, professional communication, organisational aspects and patient input, illustrated with quotes from the interviews and focus group sessions. Furthermore, we identified whether the themes occurred in the chain of care. Knowledge deficits, attitude problems and patient input were similar for the EMS and ED settings, despite the different positions, backgrounds and educational levels of respondents. In the chain of care a lack of professional communication and organisational feedback occurred as new themes, and were specifically related to the organisational structure of the prehospital EMS and EDs. CONCLUSION: Identified organisational aspects stressed the importance of organisational embedding of improvement of pain management. However, change of clinical practice requires a comprehensive approach focused at all five concepts. We think a shift in attitudes is needed, together with constant surveillance and feedback to emergency care providers. Implementation efforts need to be aimed at the identified barriers and facilitators, tailored to the chain of emergency care and the multi-professional group of emergency care providers.status: publishe

Facilitators and barriers in pain management for trauma patients in the chain of emergency care

Introduction: the aim of the study is to give insight into facilitators and barriers in pain management in trauma patients in the chain of emergency care in the Netherlands.Patients and methods: a qualitative approach was adopted with the use of the implementation Model of Change of Clinical Practice. The chain of emergency care concerned prehospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Emergency Departments (EDs). We included two EMS ambulance services and three EDs and conducted five focus groups and 10 individual interviews. Stakeholders and managers of organisations were interviewed individually. Focus group participants were selected based on availability and general characteristics. Transcripts of the audio recordings and field notes were analysed in consecutive steps, based on thematic content analysis. Each step was independently performed by the researchers, and was discussed afterwards. We analysed differences and similarities supported by software for qualitative analysis MaxQDA.Results: this study identified five concepts as facilitators and barriers in pain management for trauma patients in the chain of emergency care. We described the concepts of knowledge, attitude, professional communication, organisational aspects and patient input, illustrated with quotes from the interviews and focus group sessions. Furthermore, we identified whether the themes occurred in the chain of care. Knowledge deficits, attitude problems and patient input were similar for the EMS and ED settings, despite the different positions, backgrounds and educational levels of respondents. In the chain of care a lack of professional communication and organisational feedback occurred as new themes, and were specifically related to the organisational structure of the prehospital EMS and EDs.Conclusion: identified organisational aspects stressed the importance of organisational embedding of improvement of pain management. However, change of clinical practice requires a comprehensive approach focused at all five concepts. We think a shift in attitudes is needed, together with constant surveillance and feedback to emergency care providers. Implementation efforts need to be aimed at the identified barriers and facilitators, tailored to the chain of emergency care and the multi-professional group of emergency care provider

A tailored e-learning program to improve handover in the chain of emergency care: a pre-test post-test study

OBJECTIVE: To standardize patient handover in the chain of emergency care a handover guideline was developed. The main guideline recommendation is to use the DeMIST model (Demographics, Mechanism of Injury/illness, Injury/Illness, Signs, Treatment given) to structure pre-hospital notification and handover. To benefit from the new guideline, guideline adherence is necessary. As adherence to guidelines in emergency care settings is variable, there is a need to systematically implement the new guideline. For implementation of the guideline we developed a e-learning program tailored to influencing factors. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this e-learning program to improve emergency care professionals' adherence to the handover guideline during pre-hospital notification and handover in the chain of emergency medical service (EMS), emergency medical dispatch (EMD), and emergency department (ED). METHODS: A prospective pre-test post-test study was conducted. The intervention was a tailored e-learning program that was offered to ambulance crew and emergency medical dispatchers (n=88). Data on adherence included pre-hospital notifications and handovers and were collected through observations and audiotapes before and after the e-learning program. Data were analyzed using X(2)-tests and t-tests. RESULTS: In total, 78/88 (88.6%) professionals followed the e-learning program. During pre- and post-test, 146 and 169 handovers were observed respectively. After the e-learning program, no significant difference in the number of handovers with the DeMIST model (77.9% vs. 73.1%, p=.319) and the number of handovers with the correct sequence of the DeMIST model (69.9% vs. 70.5%, p=.159) existed. During the handover, the number of questions by ED staff and interruptions significantly increased from 49.0% to 68.9% and from 15.2% to 52.7% respectively (both p=.000). Most handovers were performed after patient transfer, this did not change after the intervention (p=.167). The number of handovers where information was documented during handover slightly increased from 26.9% to 29.3% (p=.632). CONCLUSIONS: The tailored e-learning program did not improve adherence to a handover guideline in the chain of emergency care. Results show a relatively high baseline adherence rate to usage and correct sequence of the DeMIST model. Improvements in the handover process can be made on the documentation of information during handover, the number of interruptions and questions, and the handover moment.status: publishe

Solo emergency care by a physician assistant versus an ambulance nurse: a cross-sectional document study

Background: This study compares the assessment, treatment, referral, and follow up contact with the dispatch centre of emergency patients treated by two types of solo emergency care providers in ambulance emergency medical services (EMS) in the Netherlands: the physician assistant (PA), educated in the medical domain, and the ambulance registered nurse (RN), educated in the nursing domain. The hypothesis of this study was that there is no difference in outcome of care between the patients of PAs and RNs. Methods: In a cross-sectional document study in two EMS regions we included 991 patients, treated by two PAs (n=493) and 23 RNs (n=498). The inclusion period was October 2010-December 2012 for region 1 and January 2013-March 2014 for region 2. Emergency care data were drawn from predefined and free text fields in the electronic patient records. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. We used ?2 and Mann-Whitney U tests to analyse for differences in outcome of care. Statistical significance was assumed at a level of P &lt;0.05.Results: Patients treated by PAs and RNs were similar with respect to patient characteristics. In general, diagnostic measurements according to the national EMS standard were applied by RNs and by PAs. In line with the medical education, PAs used a medical diagnostic approach (16%, n=77) and a systematic physical exam of organ tract systems (31%, n=155). PAs and RNs provided similar interventions. Additionally, PAs consulted more often other medical specialists (33%) than RNs (17%) (?2=35.5, P&lt;0.0001). PAs referred less patients to the general practitioner or emergency department (50%) compared to RNs (73%) (?2=52.9, P&lt; 0.0001). Patient follow up contact with the dispatch centre within 72 hours after completion of the emergency care on scene showed no variation between PAs (5%) and RNs (4%). Conclusions: In line with their medical education, PAs seemed to operate from a more general medical perspective. They used a medical diagnostic approach, consulted more medical specialists, and referred significantly less patients to other health care professionals compared to RNs. While the patients of the PAs did not contact the dispatch centre more often afterwards. <br/

Factors influencing ambulance nurses' adherence to a national protocol ambulance care: an implementation study in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES: Adherence to prehospital guidelines and protocols is suboptimal. Insight into influencing factors is necessary to improve adherence. The aim of this study was to identify factors that influence ambulance nurses' adherence to a National Protocol Ambulance Care (NPAC). METHODS: A questionnaire was developed using the literature, a questionnaire and expert opinion. Ambulance nurses (n=452) from four geographically spread emergency medical services (EMSs) in the Netherlands were invited to fill out the questionnaire. The questionnaire included questions on influencing factors and self-reported adherence. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 248 (55%) of the ambulance nurses. These ambulance nurses' adherence to the NPAC was 83.4% (95% confidence interval 81.9-85.0). Bivariate correlations showed 23 influencing factors that could be related to the individual professional, organization, protocol characteristics and social context. Multilevel regression analysis showed that 21% of the variation in adherence (R=0.208) was explained by protocol characteristics and social influences. CONCLUSION: Ambulance nurses' self-reported adherence to the NPAC seems high. To improve adherence, protocol characteristics (complexity, the degree of support for diagnosis and treatment, the relationship of the protocol with patient outcomes) and social influences (expectance of colleagues to work with the national protocol) should be addressed.status: publishe

Design of the circulation improving resuscitation care (CIRC) trial: a new state of the art design for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest research

Purpose Mechanical chest compression devices, such as the AutoPulse®, have been developed to overcome problems associated with manual CPR (M-CPR). Animal and human studies have shown that AutoPulse CPR improves hemodynamic parameters over M-CPR. However, human studies conducted in the prehospital setting have conflicting results as to the AutoPulse's efficacy in improving survival. The Circulation Improving Resuscitation Care (CIRC) Trial is designed to evaluate the effectiveness of integrated AutoPulse-CPR (iA-CPR) (i.e., M-CPR followed by AutoPulse®-CPR) in a randomized controlled trial that addresses methodological issues that may have influenced the results of previous studies. Methods This paper describes the methodology of the CIRC trial. Results Unlike previous trials the CIRC trial studies iA-CPR where emphasis is placed on reducing “hands-off” time. The trial has six unique features: (1) training of all EMS providers in a standardized deployment strategy that reduces hands-off time and continuous monitoring for protocol compliance. (2) A pre-trial simulation study of provider compliance with the trial protocol. (3) Three distinct study phases (in-field training, run-in, and statistical inclusion) to minimize the Hawthorne effect and other biases. (4) Monitoring of the CPR process using either transthoracic impedance or accelerometer data. (5) Randomization at the subject level after the decision to resuscitate is made to reduce selection bias. (6) Use of the Group Sequential Double Triangular Test with sufficient power to determine superiority, inferiority, or equivalence. Conclusion This unique, large, multicenter study comparing the effectiveness of iA-CPR to M-CPR will contribute to the science of the treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest as well as to the design of future trials

Clinical Paper Manual vs. integrated automatic load-distributing band CPR with equal survival after out of hospital cardiac arrest. The randomized CIRC trial ଝ,ଝଝ

a b s t r a c t Objective: To compare integrated automated load distributing band CPR (iA-CPR) with high-quality manual CPR (M-CPR) to determine equivalence, superiority, or inferiority in survival to hospital discharge. Methods: Between March 5, 2009 and January 11, 2011 a randomized, unblinded, controlled group sequential trial of adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrests of presumed cardiac origin was conducted at three US and two European sites. After EMS providers initiated manual compressions patients were randomized to receive either iA-CPR or M-CPR. Patient follow-up was until all patients were discharged alive or died. The primary outcome, survival to hospital discharge, was analyzed adjusting for covariates, (age, witnessed arrest, initial cardiac rhythm, enrollment site) and interim analyses. CPR quality and protocol adherence were monitored (CPR fraction) electronically throughout the trial. Results: Of 4753 randomized patients, 522 (11.0%) met post enrollment exclusion criteria. Therefore, 2099 (49.6%) received iA-CPR and 2132 (50.4%) M-CPR. Sustained ROSC (emergency department admittance), 24 h survival and hospital discharge (unknown for 12 cases) for iA-CPR compared to M-CPR were 600 (28.6%) vs. 689 (32.3%), 456 (21.8%) vs. 532 (25.0%), 196 (9.4%) vs. 233 (11.0%) patients, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio of survival to hospital discharge for iA-CPR compared to M-CPR, was 1.06 (95% CI 0.83-1.37), meeting the criteria for equivalence. The 20 min CPR fraction was 80.4% for iA-CPR and 80.2% for M-CPR. Conclusion: Compared to high-quality M-CPR, iA-CPR resulted in statistically equivalent survival to hospital discharge