Pre-hospital management protocols and perceived difficulty in diagnosing acute heart failure

Aim To illustrate the pre-hospital management arsenals and protocols in different EMS units, and to estimate the perceived difficulty of diagnosing suspected acute heart failure (AHF) compared with other common pre-hospital conditions. Methods and results A multinational survey included 104 emergency medical service (EMS) regions from 18 countries. Diagnostic and therapeutic arsenals related to AHF management were reported for each type of EMS unit. The prevalence and contents of management protocols for common medical conditions treated pre-hospitally was collected. The perceived difficulty of diagnosing AHF and other medical conditions by emergency medical dispatchers and EMS personnel was interrogated. Ultrasound devices and point-of-care testing were available in advanced life support and helicopter EMS units in fewer than 25% of EMS regions. AHF protocols were present in 80.8% of regions. Protocols for ST-elevation myocardial infarction, chest pain, and dyspnoea were present in 95.2, 80.8, and 76.0% of EMS regions, respectively. Protocolized diagnostic actions for AHF management included 12-lead electrocardiogram (92.1% of regions), ultrasound examination (16.0%), and point-of-care testings for troponin and BNP (6.0 and 3.5%). Therapeutic actions included supplementary oxygen (93.2%), non-invasive ventilation (80.7%), intravenous furosemide, opiates, nitroglycerine (69.0, 68.6, and 57.0%), and intubation 71.5%. Diagnosing suspected AHF was considered easy to moderate by EMS personnel and moderate to difficult by emergency medical dispatchers (without significant differences between de novo and decompensated heart failure). In both settings, diagnosis of suspected AHF was considered easier than pulmonary embolism and more difficult than ST-elevation myocardial infarction, asthma, and stroke. Conclusions The prevalence of AHF protocols is rather high but the contents seem to vary. Difficulty of diagnosing suspected AHF seems to be moderate compared with other pre-hospital conditions

Testing quality indicators and proposing benchmarks for physician-staffed emergency medical services : a prospective Nordic multicentre study

Objectives A consensus study from 2017 developed 15 response-specific quality indicators (QIs) for physician-staffed emergency medical services (P-EMS). The aim of this study was to test these OIs for important characteristics in a real clinical setting. These characteristics were feasibility, rankability, variability, actionability and documentation. We further aimed to propose benchmarks for future quality measurements in P-EMS. Design In this prospective observational study, physician-staffed helicopter emergency services registered data for the 15 QIs. The feasibility of the QIs was assessed based on the comments of the recording physicians. The other four OI characteristics were assessed by the authors. Benchmarks were proposed based on the quartiles in the dataset. Setting Nordic physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical services. Participants 16 physician-staffed helicopter emergency services in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. Results The dataset consists of 5638 requests to the participating P-EMSs. There were 2814 requests resulting in completed responses with patient contact. All OIs were feasible to obtain. The variability of 14 out of 15 OIs was adequate. Rankability was adequate for all Us. Actionability was assessed as being adequate for 10 OIs. Documentation was adequate for 14 OIs. Benchmarks for all OIs were proposed. Conclusions All 15 OIs seem possible to use in everyday quality measurement and improvement. However, it seems reasonable to not analyse the QI 'Adverse Events' with a strictly quantitative approach because of a low rate of adverse events. Rather, this QI should be used to identify adverse events so that they can be analysed as sentinel events. The actionability of the QIs 'Able to respond immediately when alarmed', 'Time to arrival of P-EMS', 'Time to preferred destination', 'Provision of advanced treatment' and 'Significant logistical contribution' was assessed as being poor. Benchmarks for the OIs and a total quality score are proposed for future quality measurements