Alternative Destination Transport? The Role of Paramedics in Optimal Use of the Emergency Department

Introduction: Alternative destination transportation by emergency medical services (EMS) is a subject of hot debate between those favoring all patients being evaluated by an emergency physician (EP) and those recognizing the need to reduce emergency department (ED) crowding. This study aimed to determine whether paramedics could accurately assess a patient’s acuity level to determine the need to transport to an ED. Methods: We performed a prospective double-blinded analysis of responses recorded by paramedics and EPs of arriving patients’ acuity level in a large Level II trauma center between April 2015 and November 2015. Under-triage was defined as lower acuity assessed by paramedics but higher acuity by EPs. Over-triage was defined as higher acuity assessed by paramedics but lower acuity by EPs. The degree of agreement between the paramedics and EPs’ evaluations of patient’s acuity level was compared using Chi-square test. Results: We included a total of 503 patients in the final analysis. For paramedics, 2 51 (49.9%) patients were assessed to be emergent, 178 (35.4%) assessed as urgent, and 74 (14.7%) assessed as non-emergent/non-urgent. In comparison, the EPs assessed 296 (58.9%) patients as emergent, 148 (29.4%) assessed as urgent, and 59 (11.7%) assessed as non-emergent/ non-urgent. Paramedics agreed with EPs regarding the acuity level assessment on 71.8% of the cases. The overall under- and over-triage were 19.3% and 8.9%, respectively. A moderate Kappa=0.5174 indicated moderate inter-rater agreement between paramedics’ and EPs’ assessment on the same cohort of patients. Conclusion: There is a significant difference in paramedic and physician assessment of patients into emergent, urgent, or non-emergent/non-urgent categories. The field triage of a patient to an alternative destination by paramedics under their current scope of practice and training cannot be supported

Alternative Destination Transport? The Role of Paramedics in Optimal Use of the Emergency Department

Introduction: Alternative destination transportation by emergency medical services (EMS) is a subject of hot debate between those favoring all patients being evaluated by an emergency physician (EP) and those recognizing the need to reduce emergency department (ED) crowding. This study aimed to determine whether paramedics could accurately assess a patient’s acuity level to determine the need to transport to an ED. Methods: We performed a prospective double-blinded analysis of responses recorded by paramedics and EPs of arriving patients’ acuity level in a large Level II trauma center between April 2015 and November 2015. Under-triage was defined as lower acuity assessed by paramedics but higher acuity by EPs. Over-triage was defined as higher acuity assessed by paramedics but lower acuity by EPs. The degree of agreement between the paramedics and EPs’ evaluations of patient’s acuity level was compared using Chi-square test. Results: We included a total of 503 patients in the final analysis. For paramedics, 2 51 (49.9%) patients were assessed to be emergent, 178 (35.4%) assessed as urgent, and 74 (14.7%) assessed as non-emergent/non-urgent. In comparison, the EPs assessed 296 (58.9%) patients as emergent, 148 (29.4%) assessed as urgent, and 59 (11.7%) assessed as non-emergent/ non-urgent. Paramedics agreed with EPs regarding the acuity level assessment on 71.8% of the cases. The overall under- and over-triage were 19.3% and 8.9%, respectively. A moderate Kappa=0.5174 indicated moderate inter-rater agreement between paramedics’ and EPs’ assessment on the same cohort of patients. Conclusion: There is a significant difference in paramedic and physician assessment of patients into emergent, urgent, or non-emergent/non-urgent categories. The field triage of a patient to an alternative destination by paramedics under their current scope of practice and training cannot be supported

Alternative Destination Transport? The Role of Paramedics in Optimal Use of the Emergency Department

Introduction: Alternative destination transportation by emergency medical services (EMS) is a subject of hot debate between those favoring all patients being evaluated by an emergency physician (EP) and those recognizing the need to reduce emergency department (ED) crowding. This study aimed to determine whether paramedics could accurately assess a patient’s acuity level to determine the need to transport to an ED. Methods: We performed a prospective double-blinded analysis of responses recorded by paramedics and EPs of arriving patients’ acuity level in a large Level II trauma center between April 2015 and November 2015. Under-triage was defined as lower acuity assessed by paramedics but higher acuity by EPs. Over-triage was defined as higher acuity assessed by paramedics but lower acuity by EPs. The degree of agreement between the paramedics and EPs’ evaluations of patient’s acuity level was compared using Chi-square test. Results: We included a total of 503 patients in the final analysis. For paramedics, 2 51 (49.9%) patients were assessed to be emergent, 178 (35.4%) assessed as urgent, and 74 (14.7%) assessed as non-emergent/non-urgent. In comparison, the EPs assessed 296 (58.9%) patients as emergent, 148 (29.4%) assessed as urgent, and 59 (11.7%) assessed as non-emergent/ non-urgent. Paramedics agreed with EPs regarding the acuity level assessment on 71.8% of the cases. The overall under- and over-triage were 19.3% and 8.9%, respectively. A moderate Kappa=0.5174 indicated moderate inter-rater agreement between paramedics’ and EPs’ assessment on the same cohort of patients. Conclusion: There is a significant difference in paramedic and physician assessment of patients into emergent, urgent, or non-emergent/non-urgent categories. The field triage of a patient to an alternative destination by paramedics under their current scope of practice and training cannot be supported

Tranexamic Acid in Civilian Trauma Care in the California Prehospital Antifibrinolytic Therapy Study

Introduction: Hemorrhage is one of the leading causes of death in trauma victims. Historically, paramedics have not had access to medications that specifically target the reversal of trauma-induced coagulopathies. The California Prehospital Antifibrinolytic Therapy (Cal-PAT) study seeks to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tranexamic acid (TXA) use in the civilian prehospital setting in cases of traumatic hemorrhagic shock.  Methods: The Cal-PAT study is a multi-centered, prospective, observational cohort study with a retrospective comparison. From March 2015 to July 2017, patients ≥ 18 years-old who sustained blunt or penetrating trauma with signs of hemorrhagic shock identified by first responders in the prehospital setting were considered for TXA treatment. A control group was formed of patients seen in the five years prior to data collection cessation (June 2012 to July 2017) at each receiving center who were not administered TXA. Control group patients were selected through propensity score matching based on gender, age, Injury Severity Scores, and mechanism of injury. The primary outcome assessed was mortality recorded at 24 hours, 48 hours, and 28 days. Additional variables assessed included total blood products transfused, the hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, systolic blood pressure taken prior to TXA administration, Glasgow Coma Score observed prior to TXA administration, and the incidence of known adverse events associated with TXA administration. Results: We included 724 patients in the final analysis, with 362 patients in the TXA group and 362 in the control group. Reduced mortality was noted at 28 days in the TXA group in comparison to the control group (3.6% vs. 8.3% for TXA and control, respectively, odds ratio [OR]=0.41 with 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.21 to 0.8]). This mortality difference was greatest in severely injured patients with ISS >15 (6% vs 14.5% for TXA and control, respectively, OR=0.37 with 95% CI [0.17 to 0.8]). Furthermore, a significant reduction in total blood product transfused was observed after TXA administration in the total cohort as well as in severely injured patients. No significant increase in known adverse events following TXA administration were observed.  Conclusion: Findings from the Cal-PAT study suggest that TXA use in the civilian prehospital setting may safely improve survival outcomes in patients who have sustained traumatic injury with signs of hemorrhagic shock

Tranexamic Acid in Civilian Trauma Care in the California Prehospital Antifibrinolytic Therapy Study

Introduction: Hemorrhage is one of the leading causes of death in trauma victims. Historically, paramedics have not had access to medications that specifically target the reversal of trauma-induced coagulopathies. The California Prehospital Antifibrinolytic Therapy (Cal-PAT) study seeks to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tranexamic acid (TXA) use in the civilian prehospital setting in cases of traumatic hemorrhagic shock.  Methods: The Cal-PAT study is a multi-centered, prospective, observational cohort study with a retrospective comparison. From March 2015 to July 2017, patients ≥ 18 years-old who sustained blunt or penetrating trauma with signs of hemorrhagic shock identified by first responders in the prehospital setting were considered for TXA treatment. A control group was formed of patients seen in the five years prior to data collection cessation (June 2012 to July 2017) at each receiving center who were not administered TXA. Control group patients were selected through propensity score matching based on gender, age, Injury Severity Scores, and mechanism of injury. The primary outcome assessed was mortality recorded at 24 hours, 48 hours, and 28 days. Additional variables assessed included total blood products transfused, the hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, systolic blood pressure taken prior to TXA administration, Glasgow Coma Score observed prior to TXA administration, and the incidence of known adverse events associated with TXA administration. Results: We included 724 patients in the final analysis, with 362 patients in the TXA group and 362 in the control group. Reduced mortality was noted at 28 days in the TXA group in comparison to the control group (3.6% vs. 8.3% for TXA and control, respectively, odds ratio [OR]=0.41 with 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.21 to 0.8]). This mortality difference was greatest in severely injured patients with ISS >15 (6% vs 14.5% for TXA and control, respectively, OR=0.37 with 95% CI [0.17 to 0.8]). Furthermore, a significant reduction in total blood product transfused was observed after TXA administration in the total cohort as well as in severely injured patients. No significant increase in known adverse events following TXA administration were observed.  Conclusion: Findings from the Cal-PAT study suggest that TXA use in the civilian prehospital setting may safely improve survival outcomes in patients who have sustained traumatic injury with signs of hemorrhagic shock

Efficacy and Safety of Tranexamic Acid in Prehospital Traumatic Hemorrhagic Shock: Outcomes of the Cal-PAT Study

Introduction: The California Prehospital Antifibrinolytic Therapy (Cal-PAT) study seeks to assess thesafety and impact on patient mortality of tranexamic acid (TXA) administration in cases of trauma-inducedhemorrhagic shock. The current study further aimed to assess the feasibility of prehospital TXA administrationby paramedics within the framework of North American emergency medicine standards and protocols.Methods: This is an ongoing multi-centered, prospective, observational cohort study with a retrospectivechart-review comparison. Trauma patients identified in the prehospital setting with signs of hemorrhagicshock by first responders were administered one gram of TXA followed by an optional second one-gram doseupon arrival to the hospital, if the patient still met inclusion criteria. Patients administered TXA make up theprehospital intervention group. Control group patients met the same inclusion criteria as TXA candidates andwere matched with the prehospital intervention patients based on mechanism of injury, injury severity score,and age. The primary outcomes were mortality, measured at 24 hours, 48 hours, and 28 days. Secondaryoutcomes measured included the total blood products transfused and any known adverse events associatedwith TXA administration.Results: We included 128 patients in the prehospital intervention group and 125 in the control group.Although not statistically significant, the prehospital intervention group trended toward a lower 24-hourmortality rate (3.9% vs 7.2% for intervention and control, respectively, p=0.25), 48-hour mortality rate (6.3%vs 7.2% for intervention and control, respectively, p=0.76), and 28-day mortality rate (6.3% vs 10.4% forintervention and control, respectively, p=0.23). There was no significant difference observed in knownadverse events associated with TXA administration in the prehospital intervention group and control group. Areduction in total blood product usage was observed following the administration of TXA (control: 6.95 units;intervention: 4.09 units; p=0.01).Conclusion: Preliminary evidence from the Cal-PAT study suggests that TXA administration may be safe inthe prehospital setting with no significant change in adverse events observed and an associated decreaseduse of blood products in cases of trauma-induced hemorrhagic shock. Given the current sample size, astatistically significant decrease in mortality was not observed. Additionally, this study demonstrates thatit may be feasible for paramedics to identify and safely administer TXA in the prehospital setting