评估在医院间转运环境中为农村院外心脏骤停患者提供护理的差异。

IF 1.6 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Michael J. Burla DO, Peter C. Michalakes BA, Jeanne S. Wishengrad MSc, Drew R. York BA, Holly A. Stevens BSN-RN,MHRT-CSP, Teresa L. May DO
{"title":"评估在医院间转运环境中为农村院外心脏骤停患者提供护理的差异。","authors":"Michael J. Burla DO,&nbsp;Peter C. Michalakes BA,&nbsp;Jeanne S. Wishengrad MSc,&nbsp;Drew R. York BA,&nbsp;Holly A. Stevens BSN-RN,MHRT-CSP,&nbsp;Teresa L. May DO","doi":"10.1002/emp2.13330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>There is significant variation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) outcomes between different regions. We sought to evaluate outcomes of OHCA patients in the interfacility transfer (IFT) setting, between critical care transport (LifeFlight) and community Emergency Medical Services (EMS), in the state of Maine.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This was a retrospective analysis of our institution's electronic medical record and the Maine EMS database. Data were collected from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. Only adult OHCA encounters requiring an IFT for definitive post-cardiac-arrest care were included. Demographics, EMS agency, IFT vital signs, targeted temperature management (TTM) medications, cerebral performance category (CPC) scores, survival to discharge, and other descriptive variables were collected.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Ninety-three patients met inclusion criteria, with LifeFlight transferring 30 of them (32.3%). LifeFlight was more likely to initiate TTM compared to other EMS agencies (<i>p</i> = 0.012), have run-sheets reported (<i>p</i> = 0.001), and serve rural areas (<i>p</i> = 0.036). LifeFlight was associated with more epinephrine (0.034) and norepinephrine (&lt;0.001) use. Only 37% of IFTs had physician orders, with none (0.0%) of them defining vital sign targets. No difference in survival to discharge or CPC scores was observed between LifeFlight and other EMS agencies. No significant variation in comorbidities or vital signs was observed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>There was no difference in survival to discharge or CPC scores between LifeFlight and ad hoc EMS agency. LifeFlight was associated with more TTM and vasopressor utilization during IFT. Most IFT encounters did not have dedicated physician orders, and none of the orders included vital sign targets.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":73967,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11491542/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing variations in care delivered to rural out of hospital cardiac arrest patients in the interfacility transfer setting\",\"authors\":\"Michael J. Burla DO,&nbsp;Peter C. Michalakes BA,&nbsp;Jeanne S. Wishengrad MSc,&nbsp;Drew R. York BA,&nbsp;Holly A. Stevens BSN-RN,MHRT-CSP,&nbsp;Teresa L. May DO\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/emp2.13330\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>There is significant variation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) outcomes between different regions. We sought to evaluate outcomes of OHCA patients in the interfacility transfer (IFT) setting, between critical care transport (LifeFlight) and community Emergency Medical Services (EMS), in the state of Maine.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This was a retrospective analysis of our institution's electronic medical record and the Maine EMS database. Data were collected from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. Only adult OHCA encounters requiring an IFT for definitive post-cardiac-arrest care were included. Demographics, EMS agency, IFT vital signs, targeted temperature management (TTM) medications, cerebral performance category (CPC) scores, survival to discharge, and other descriptive variables were collected.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Ninety-three patients met inclusion criteria, with LifeFlight transferring 30 of them (32.3%). LifeFlight was more likely to initiate TTM compared to other EMS agencies (<i>p</i> = 0.012), have run-sheets reported (<i>p</i> = 0.001), and serve rural areas (<i>p</i> = 0.036). LifeFlight was associated with more epinephrine (0.034) and norepinephrine (&lt;0.001) use. Only 37% of IFTs had physician orders, with none (0.0%) of them defining vital sign targets. No difference in survival to discharge or CPC scores was observed between LifeFlight and other EMS agencies. No significant variation in comorbidities or vital signs was observed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>There was no difference in survival to discharge or CPC scores between LifeFlight and ad hoc EMS agency. LifeFlight was associated with more TTM and vasopressor utilization during IFT. Most IFT encounters did not have dedicated physician orders, and none of the orders included vital sign targets.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73967,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11491542/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/emp2.13330\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/emp2.13330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:院外心脏骤停 (OHCA) 的治疗效果在不同地区之间存在很大差异。我们试图评估缅因州重症监护转运(LifeFlight)和社区急救医疗服务(EMS)之间院外心脏骤停(OHCA)患者的转运结果:这是一项对本机构电子病历和缅因州急救医疗服务数据库的回顾性分析。数据收集时间为 2019 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 12 月 31 日。仅纳入了需要使用内转子治疗仪进行心搏骤停后明确治疗的成人 OHCA 患者。收集了人口统计学、急救医疗机构、IFT 生命体征、目标体温管理 (TTM) 药物、脑功能类别 (CPC) 评分、出院存活率以及其他描述性变量:有 93 名患者符合纳入标准,其中生命之光转运了 30 名患者(32.3%)。与其他急救机构相比,生命之光更有可能启动 TTM(p = 0.012),有运行单报告(p = 0.001),并服务于农村地区(p = 0.036)。生命之光与更多的肾上腺素(0.034)和去甲肾上腺素(结论:LifeFlight 和特设急救医疗机构在出院存活率或 CPC 评分方面没有差异。生命飞行 "服务与更多地使用 TTM 和血管加压素有关。大多数 IFT 会诊都没有专门的医嘱,而且所有医嘱都不包括生命体征目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Assessing variations in care delivered to rural out of hospital cardiac arrest patients in the interfacility transfer setting

Assessing variations in care delivered to rural out of hospital cardiac arrest patients in the interfacility transfer setting

Objective

There is significant variation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) outcomes between different regions. We sought to evaluate outcomes of OHCA patients in the interfacility transfer (IFT) setting, between critical care transport (LifeFlight) and community Emergency Medical Services (EMS), in the state of Maine.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of our institution's electronic medical record and the Maine EMS database. Data were collected from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. Only adult OHCA encounters requiring an IFT for definitive post-cardiac-arrest care were included. Demographics, EMS agency, IFT vital signs, targeted temperature management (TTM) medications, cerebral performance category (CPC) scores, survival to discharge, and other descriptive variables were collected.

Results

Ninety-three patients met inclusion criteria, with LifeFlight transferring 30 of them (32.3%). LifeFlight was more likely to initiate TTM compared to other EMS agencies (p = 0.012), have run-sheets reported (p = 0.001), and serve rural areas (p = 0.036). LifeFlight was associated with more epinephrine (0.034) and norepinephrine (<0.001) use. Only 37% of IFTs had physician orders, with none (0.0%) of them defining vital sign targets. No difference in survival to discharge or CPC scores was observed between LifeFlight and other EMS agencies. No significant variation in comorbidities or vital signs was observed.

Conclusions

There was no difference in survival to discharge or CPC scores between LifeFlight and ad hoc EMS agency. LifeFlight was associated with more TTM and vasopressor utilization during IFT. Most IFT encounters did not have dedicated physician orders, and none of the orders included vital sign targets.

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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
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