直升机紧急医疗服务中的床旁超声检查及其对临床床旁时间的影响

Q3 Nursing
Jarett D. Jones BS, Mason A. Hill BS, Matthew VandeHei MD, Justin Purnell MD, Nikolai Schnittke MD, PhD, Sara Damewood MD, Hani I. Kuttab MD
{"title":"直升机紧急医疗服务中的床旁超声检查及其对临床床旁时间的影响","authors":"Jarett D. Jones BS,&nbsp;Mason A. Hill BS,&nbsp;Matthew VandeHei MD,&nbsp;Justin Purnell MD,&nbsp;Nikolai Schnittke MD, PhD,&nbsp;Sara Damewood MD,&nbsp;Hani I. Kuttab MD","doi":"10.1016/j.amj.2024.05.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Time constraints and concerns for delays in transport are often cited by helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) providers as factors for not performing point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of POCUS on clinical bedside times in HEMS transports.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This is a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study of adult patients aged &gt;18 years transported via HEMS from March 1, 2018 to April 7, 2023, at a single academic medical center who received a POCUS examination. Exclusion criteria were: patients aged &lt;18 years of age and of vulnerable populations (e.g., prisoners, pregnant women), studies with missing data (e.g., medical record numbers), and studies which were not submitted for quality assurance. The POCUS group was matched to a cohort of patients transported in 2022 who did not receive POCUS. A linear regression model was fit to evaluate the effect of POCUS on clinical bedside time, adjusting for confounders. Covariates adjusted for included: age, sex, type of transfer (interfacility vs. scene), type of call (medical vs. scene), air vs. ground transport, red blood cell, vasopressor, or IV fluids administration, intubation, disposition, and specialty call (e.g., ECMO). Since the data for the control group was only for a single year, a second model was fit matching the same time-period for both groups. A sensitivity analysis was performed for each model.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In total, 439 patients were included; 242 patients (55.1%) received POCUS and 197 patients (44.9%) had no POCUS performed. Overall mean clinical bedside time was 48 ± 33 minutes in the POCUS group versus 32 ± 23 minutes in the non-POCUS group. POCUS cases were more likely to be scene calls (39% vs. 14%), trauma cases (42% vs. 26%), were more likely to receive red blood cells (20% vs. 7.6%), vasopressors (44% vs. 16%), or more likely intubated in the field (48% vs. 28%). When evaluating the entire cohort, patients exposed to POCUS experienced times 21% longer than those in the non-POCUS group (β = 0.19, 95% CI 0.09-0.29, p &lt;0.001; R² = 56.6%). However, when considering only the period-matched cohort (2022, n=290), no significant difference in clinical beside times was observed in the POCUS group (β = 0.09, 95% CI -0.05-0.23, p = 0.23; R² = 56.0%). In this model, a nonsignificant increase in time was estimated to be two minutes, with the upper limit of confidence at five minutes.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In the entire cohort, patients with HEMS-performed POCUS exam had significantly longer bedside times. However, these patients were also more likely to be scene calls, trauma cases, and more critically ill compared to non-POCUS cases. When evaluating a period-matched cohort of patients in 2022, no significant differences in cases where POCUS was utilized was observed. This may be due to improved provider comfort and efficiency performing studies and/or improved integration of POCUS into the HEMS environment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":35737,"journal":{"name":"Air Medical Journal","volume":"43 4","pages":"Pages 364-365"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Helicopter Emergency Medical Services and Impact on Clinical Bedside Times\",\"authors\":\"Jarett D. Jones BS,&nbsp;Mason A. Hill BS,&nbsp;Matthew VandeHei MD,&nbsp;Justin Purnell MD,&nbsp;Nikolai Schnittke MD, PhD,&nbsp;Sara Damewood MD,&nbsp;Hani I. Kuttab MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.amj.2024.05.015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Time constraints and concerns for delays in transport are often cited by helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) providers as factors for not performing point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of POCUS on clinical bedside times in HEMS transports.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This is a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study of adult patients aged &gt;18 years transported via HEMS from March 1, 2018 to April 7, 2023, at a single academic medical center who received a POCUS examination. Exclusion criteria were: patients aged &lt;18 years of age and of vulnerable populations (e.g., prisoners, pregnant women), studies with missing data (e.g., medical record numbers), and studies which were not submitted for quality assurance. The POCUS group was matched to a cohort of patients transported in 2022 who did not receive POCUS. A linear regression model was fit to evaluate the effect of POCUS on clinical bedside time, adjusting for confounders. Covariates adjusted for included: age, sex, type of transfer (interfacility vs. scene), type of call (medical vs. scene), air vs. ground transport, red blood cell, vasopressor, or IV fluids administration, intubation, disposition, and specialty call (e.g., ECMO). Since the data for the control group was only for a single year, a second model was fit matching the same time-period for both groups. A sensitivity analysis was performed for each model.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In total, 439 patients were included; 242 patients (55.1%) received POCUS and 197 patients (44.9%) had no POCUS performed. Overall mean clinical bedside time was 48 ± 33 minutes in the POCUS group versus 32 ± 23 minutes in the non-POCUS group. POCUS cases were more likely to be scene calls (39% vs. 14%), trauma cases (42% vs. 26%), were more likely to receive red blood cells (20% vs. 7.6%), vasopressors (44% vs. 16%), or more likely intubated in the field (48% vs. 28%). When evaluating the entire cohort, patients exposed to POCUS experienced times 21% longer than those in the non-POCUS group (β = 0.19, 95% CI 0.09-0.29, p &lt;0.001; R² = 56.6%). However, when considering only the period-matched cohort (2022, n=290), no significant difference in clinical beside times was observed in the POCUS group (β = 0.09, 95% CI -0.05-0.23, p = 0.23; R² = 56.0%). In this model, a nonsignificant increase in time was estimated to be two minutes, with the upper limit of confidence at five minutes.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In the entire cohort, patients with HEMS-performed POCUS exam had significantly longer bedside times. However, these patients were also more likely to be scene calls, trauma cases, and more critically ill compared to non-POCUS cases. When evaluating a period-matched cohort of patients in 2022, no significant differences in cases where POCUS was utilized was observed. This may be due to improved provider comfort and efficiency performing studies and/or improved integration of POCUS into the HEMS environment.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35737,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Air Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"43 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 364-365\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Air Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1067991X24001123\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Air Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1067991X24001123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的直升机紧急医疗服务(HEMS)提供者经常将时间限制和担心延误转运作为不进行床旁超声检查(POCUS)的因素。方法这是一项单中心、回顾性、观察性队列研究,研究对象为 2018 年 3 月 1 日至 2023 年 4 月 7 日期间在一家学术医疗中心接受 POCUS 检查的通过直升机紧急医疗服务运送的 18 岁成年患者。排除标准为:年龄为<18岁的患者和弱势人群(如囚犯、孕妇)、数据缺失(如病历号)的研究以及未提交质量保证的研究。POCUS组与2022年转运的未接受POCUS的患者队列进行了匹配。在对混杂因素进行调整后,我们拟合了一个线性回归模型来评估 POCUS 对临床床旁时间的影响。调整的协变量包括:年龄、性别、转运类型(设施间转运与现场转运)、呼叫类型(医疗呼叫与现场呼叫)、空中转运与地面转运、红细胞、血管舒张剂或静脉输液、插管、处置和专业呼叫(如 ECMO)。由于对照组的数据只有一年的数据,因此对两组的同一时间段进行了第二个模型的拟合。结果共纳入 439 名患者,其中 242 名患者(55.1%)接受了 POCUS,197 名患者(44.9%)未进行 POCUS。POCUS 组的临床床旁总平均时间为 48 ± 33 分钟,而非 POCUS 组为 32 ± 23 分钟。POCUS 病例更有可能是现场呼叫(39% 对 14%)、创伤病例(42% 对 26%),更有可能接受红细胞(20% 对 7.6%)、血管加压剂(44% 对 16%),或更有可能在现场插管(48% 对 28%)。在对整个队列进行评估时,使用 POCUS 的患者比未使用 POCUS 组的患者经历的时间长 21%(β = 0.19,95% CI 0.09-0.29,p <0.001;R² = 56.6%)。然而,如果只考虑时期匹配队列(2022 年,n=290),则 POCUS 组在临床旁路时间上没有观察到显著差异(β = 0.09,95% CI -0.05-0.23,p = 0.23;R² = 56.0%)。结论 在整个队列中,使用 HEMS 进行 POCUS 检查的患者的床旁时间明显更长。然而,与未进行 POCUS 检查的患者相比,这些患者更有可能是现场呼叫、创伤病例和重症患者。在对 2022 年的同期病人进行评估时,没有观察到使用 POCUS 的病例有明显差异。这可能是由于医护人员在进行研究时的舒适度和效率有所提高,以及/或 POCUS 与急救医疗环境的整合有所改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Helicopter Emergency Medical Services and Impact on Clinical Bedside Times

Objective

Time constraints and concerns for delays in transport are often cited by helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) providers as factors for not performing point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of POCUS on clinical bedside times in HEMS transports.

Methods

This is a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study of adult patients aged >18 years transported via HEMS from March 1, 2018 to April 7, 2023, at a single academic medical center who received a POCUS examination. Exclusion criteria were: patients aged <18 years of age and of vulnerable populations (e.g., prisoners, pregnant women), studies with missing data (e.g., medical record numbers), and studies which were not submitted for quality assurance. The POCUS group was matched to a cohort of patients transported in 2022 who did not receive POCUS. A linear regression model was fit to evaluate the effect of POCUS on clinical bedside time, adjusting for confounders. Covariates adjusted for included: age, sex, type of transfer (interfacility vs. scene), type of call (medical vs. scene), air vs. ground transport, red blood cell, vasopressor, or IV fluids administration, intubation, disposition, and specialty call (e.g., ECMO). Since the data for the control group was only for a single year, a second model was fit matching the same time-period for both groups. A sensitivity analysis was performed for each model.

Results

In total, 439 patients were included; 242 patients (55.1%) received POCUS and 197 patients (44.9%) had no POCUS performed. Overall mean clinical bedside time was 48 ± 33 minutes in the POCUS group versus 32 ± 23 minutes in the non-POCUS group. POCUS cases were more likely to be scene calls (39% vs. 14%), trauma cases (42% vs. 26%), were more likely to receive red blood cells (20% vs. 7.6%), vasopressors (44% vs. 16%), or more likely intubated in the field (48% vs. 28%). When evaluating the entire cohort, patients exposed to POCUS experienced times 21% longer than those in the non-POCUS group (β = 0.19, 95% CI 0.09-0.29, p <0.001; R² = 56.6%). However, when considering only the period-matched cohort (2022, n=290), no significant difference in clinical beside times was observed in the POCUS group (β = 0.09, 95% CI -0.05-0.23, p = 0.23; R² = 56.0%). In this model, a nonsignificant increase in time was estimated to be two minutes, with the upper limit of confidence at five minutes.

Conclusions

In the entire cohort, patients with HEMS-performed POCUS exam had significantly longer bedside times. However, these patients were also more likely to be scene calls, trauma cases, and more critically ill compared to non-POCUS cases. When evaluating a period-matched cohort of patients in 2022, no significant differences in cases where POCUS was utilized was observed. This may be due to improved provider comfort and efficiency performing studies and/or improved integration of POCUS into the HEMS environment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Air Medical Journal
Air Medical Journal Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
112
审稿时长
69 days
期刊介绍: Air Medical Journal is the official journal of the five leading air medical transport associations in the United States. AMJ is the premier provider of information for the medical transport industry, addressing the unique concerns of medical transport physicians, nurses, pilots, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, communication specialists, and program administrators. The journal contains practical how-to articles, debates on controversial industry issues, legislative updates, case studies, and peer-reviewed original research articles covering all aspects of the medical transport profession.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信