Advanced life support vs basic life support field care: an outcome study

Mistriaged Advanced Life Support Patients in a Two-Tiered, Suburban Emergency Medical Services System

Introduction

Emergency medical services (EMS) systems exist to provide prehospital care in diverse environments throughout the world. Advanced Life Support (ALS) services can provide advanced care including 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), endotracheal intubation and parenteral medication administration. Basic Life Support (BLS) can provide basic care such as splinting, wound care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. ALS can release patients to BLS for transport to the hospital, and this is an area of high risk. Our study examines patients who were triaged and admitted to a critical care location, including an intensive care unit (ICU), cardiac catheterization laboratory, or operating room (OR).

Methods

The analysis included data from 2007–2015 of all patients who were triaged. We evaluated demographics, admission diagnoses, and dispositions using descriptive statistics. Diagnoses were grouped into categories based on the system.

Results

We found that 372/17,639 (2%) of patients were mistriaged to BLS and admitted to a critical care location. The average age was 64. The most common diagnosis categories were neurological (24%), gastrointestinal (GI)/abdominal pain (15%), respiratory (12%), and cardiac (12%).

Conclusion

It is uncommon for patients triaged from ALS to BLS to be admitted to an ICU, catheterization lab or OR, with a rate of 2%. Neurological, GI, respiratory, and cardiac diagnoses were the most frequent categories of patient complaints that were mistriaged. This study should lead to further studies to examine this patient population.

Does Advanced Life Support Provide Benefits to Patients?: A Literature Review

Introduction:

Emergency medical services have invested substantial resources to establish advanced life support (ALS) programs. However, it is unclear whether ALS care provides better outcomes to patients compared to basic life support (BLS) care.

Objective:

To evaluate the current evidence regarding the benefits of ALS.

Methods:

Electronic medical databases were searched to identify articles that directly compared ALS versus BLS care. A total of 455 articles were found. Articles were excluded for the following reasons: (1) the article was not written in English; (2) BLS response was not compared to an ALS response; (3) a physician or nurse was included as part of the ALS response; (4) it was an aeromedical response; or (5) defibrillation was included in the ALS, but not the BLS, scope of care. Twenty-one articles met the inclusion criteria for this literature review.

Results:

Results were divided into four categories: (1) trauma; (2) cardiac arrest; (3) myocardial infarction; and (4) altered mental status.

Trauma:

The majority of articles showed that ALS provided no benefits over BLS in urban trauma patients. In fact, most studies showed higher mortality rates for trauma patients receiving ALS care. Further research is needed to evaluate the benefits of ALS for rural trauma patients, and whether ALS care improves outcomes in subgroups of urban trauma patients.

Cardiac Arrest:

Cardiac arrest studies show that early CPR plus early defibrillation provide the greatest improvement in survival. However, most cardiac arrest research includes defibrillation as an ALS skill which has now moved into the BLS scope of care. The 2004 multi-center OPALS study provided good evidence that ALS does not improve cardiac arrest survival over early defibrillation. Further research is needed to address whether any ALS interventions improve cardiac arrest outcome.

Myocardial Infarction:

Only one study directly compared the outcome of BLS and ALS care on myocardial infarction. The study found no difference in outcomes between BLS and ALS care in an urban setting.

Advanced Life Support:

Only one study directly compared the outcome of BLS and ALS care on patients with altered mental status. The study found that the same number of patients had improved to “alert” on arrival at the emergency department, but there was a decreased length of emergency department stay for patients treated by ALS for hypoglycemia.

Limitations:

This review article does not take into account the benefits of ALS interventions, such as thrombolytics, dextrose, or nitroglycerin, since no studies directly compared these interventions to BLS care. Furthermore, only one study in this literature review was a large, multi-center trial.

Conclusions:

ALS shows little, if any, benefits for urban trauma patients. Cardiac arrest studies show that ALS does not provide additional benefits over BLS-defibrillation care, but more research is needed in this area. In two small studies, ALS care did not provide benefits over BLS care for patients with myocardial infarctions or altered mental status. Larger-scale studies are needed to evaluate which specific ALS interventions improve patient outcomes.

Is advanced life support better than basic life support in prehospital care? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prehospital care is classified into ALS- (advanced life support) and BLS- (basic life support) levels according to the methods used. ALS-level prehospital care uses invasive methods, such as intravenous fluids, medications and intubation. However, the effectiveness of ALS care compared to BLS has been questionable.

AIM

The aim of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of ALS- and BLS-level prehospital care.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a systematic review, articles where ALS-level prehospital care was compared to BLS-level or any other treatment were included. The outcome variables were mortality or patient's health-related quality of life or patient's capacity to perform daily activities.

RESULTS

We identified 46 articles, mostly retrospective observational studies. The results on the effectiveness of ALS in unselected patient cohorts are contradictory. In cardiac arrest, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation are essential for survival, but prehospital ALS interventions have not improved survival. Prehospital thrombolytic treatment reduces mortality in patients having a myocardial infarction. The majority of research into trauma favours BLS in the case of penetrating trauma and also in cases of short distance to a hospital. In patients with severe head injuries, ALS provided by paramedics and intubation without anaesthesia can even be harmful. If the prehospital care is provided by an experienced physician and by a HEMS organisation (Helicopter Emergency Medical Service), ALS interventions may be beneficial for patients with multiple injuries and severe brain injuries. However, the results are contradictory.

CONCLUSIONS

ALS seems to improve survival in patients with myocardial infarction and BLS seems to be the proper level of care for patients with penetrating injuries. Some studies indicate a beneficial effect of ALS among patients with blunt head injuries or multiple injuries. There is also some evidence in favour of ALS among patients with epileptic seizures as well as those with a respiratory distress.

Effect of socioeconomic status on out-of-hospital transport delays of patients with chest pain

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The effect of socioeconomic status on out-of-hospital care has not been widely examined. We determine whether socioeconomic status was associated with out-of-hospital transport delays for patients with chest pain.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients with chest pain transported by means of ambulance in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in 1999 was conducted. The primary outcome measure was the 90th percentile system response interval, with secondary outcomes being the 90th percentile on-scene interval, transport interval, and total out-of-hospital interval. Socioeconomic status was the primary independent variable. Covariates were age, sex, case severity, dispatch and return priority, time and day of transport, paramedic training, and percentage of high-rise apartments in the region.

RESULTS

Four thousand three hundred fifty-six patients met the inclusion criteria. The 90th percentile system response interval and total out-of-hospital interval were 11 minutes and 49 minutes, respectively. In multivariate analyses, the highest socioeconomic status neighborhoods were significantly associated with decreased system response interval (34.0 seconds; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2 to 70.9 seconds) and transport interval (132.3 seconds; 95% CI 24.1 to 229.6 seconds). In addition, age (+45.3 seconds per 10 years; 95% CI 13.3 to 75.1 seconds), female sex (+205.0 seconds; 95% CI 78.1 to 287.7 seconds), and advanced care paramedic crews (+371.6 seconds; 95% CI 263.3 to 490.1 seconds) were associated with delays in total out-of-hospital interval. Lastly, calls originating from the highest socioeconomic status neighborhoods were dispatched the highest proportion of advanced care paramedic crews, despite similar dispatch priorities and case severities.

CONCLUSION

High socioeconomic status neighborhoods were associated with shorter out-of-hospital transport intervals for patients with chest pain. In addition, out-of-hospital delays were associated with age, sex, and advanced care paramedic crew type, with calls from the highest socioeconomic status neighborhoods being most likely to receive advanced care paramedic crews.

Evaluation of emergency medical services systems: a classification to assist in determination of indicators

Emergency medical services (EMS) systems, and prehospital care are difficult to evaluate. Accordingly, the true efficacy and value of such systems are difficult to determine. The multitude of variations and combinations of involved factors makes standardisation and comparison difficult, and universal indicators are hard to develop. Various attempts have been made to determine valid indicators of effectiveness, but there has been little success. Prehospital care has been seen by some as a single entity. As a result, experience from well resourced first world trauma centres has been taken, by many, to be applicable to all prehospital situations. This article attempts to assist in the development of valid EMS indicators of performance and effectiveness by categorising prehospital scenarios into a classification reflecting the reality of their conditions of practice.

How do ambulance personnel experience work at a disaster site?

Working at a major accident site is a complex matter where knowledge from various fields must be put into practice. In addition, the different situations at emergency and disaster sites place a variety of demands on personnel, equipment and organization. The aim of the present study is to investigate how the ambulance personnel perceived their own action and the functioning of the whole emergency organization at a major accident site (large discotheque fire) in 1998. Working from a list obtained from the fire department, a questionnaire with 57 questions was sent to the personnel (n = 36) who had participated at the accident site either as ambulance crew members or as members of a medical team sent out from the hospital. The response rate was 80 per cent. Despite the extreme situation, most of the ambulance personnel involved were satisfied with their own preparedness as well as the medical and nursing care performed at the site. Those who where not satisfied reported that the main reason for dissatisfaction was lack of time to calm and comfort people who were not injured or had only minor injuries. The need of more medical support for the medical team members at the site was also emphasized with regard to the care of the severely injured. The ambulance service crews from the suburbs, in comparison with the local city rescue service, were, in general, less satisfied with the co-operation from other rescue units.

A rural emergency medical technician with selected advanced skills

OBJECTIVE

To educate rural emergency medical technician basics (EMTs) in selected advanced skills, and then evaluate the safety and effectiveness of practice.

METHODS

After a minimum 72 hours of training, EMTs employed three skills (Combitube, glucometry, automated external defibrillation) and seven medications (albuterol, nitroglycerin, naloxone, epinephrine, glucagon, activated charcoal, and aspirin). Written patient care records and audiotapes were reviewed. Congruence between prehospital assessment and emergency department (ED) diagnosis was assessed, along with correct use of airway skills (18 of 36 months). The completeness of documentation, appropriateness of treatment, and patient response (by explicit criteria) were determined. Errors and complications were recorded.

RESULTS

During three years of the program, 266 patients were treated, primarily for chest pain and respiratory distress. No significant errors or complications occurred. Treatment was judged 94% appropriate, with improvement in 60% of patients. Documentation had major omissions in 3% of cases. Field and ED diagnostic congruence was present in 97/129 (75%) when evaluated during the first 18 months. EMT skill levels were maintained. The mean time to traditional advanced life support (ALS) care was 41 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

Basic-level EMTs in rural areas can be trained in selected advanced skills, and provide ALS-level care quickly and appropriately. Close medical oversight involving review of care and follow-up education is an important part of the program.