Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D C Cone

Publications and source records attributed to D C Cone.

31 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Physician field response: a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the availability, scope of practice, and training of physician field response (PFR) units for emergency medical services (EMS) systems in the United States. METHODS: The physician medical directors of EMS systems in the 125 most populous U.S. cities were surveyed by mail, with a second mailing and phone follow-up to nonresponders. In cities that listed multiple services, a survey was sent to each. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight surveys were mailed, and 121 responses were received (72%), representing 109 of the 125 cities (87%). Seventy-seven cities (71%) reported having no PFR capability. Of the 32 (29%) with some type of PFR, two reported having a dedicated field response unit, while 30 had an "on-call" system from the hospital or home. Staffing patterns were highly variable, with no dominant pattern. The number of annual PFR responses ranged from 0 to 10,000 (median 15, IQR 3-200). All systems reported that their PFR unit was well accepted by EMS providers. The following scope-of-practice items were reported (n = 30): physician triage, 30 teams (94%); on-scene medical direction, 14 (47%); amputation, six (20%); tube thoracostomy, 12 (40%); and blood administration, 29 (97%). The following training requirements for physician team members were reported (n = 32): incident command system, 15 (47%); emergency vehicle operations, 12 (38%); hazardous materials, 13 (41%); vehicle rescue/extrication, seven (22%); confined space medicine, four (13%); and none 12 (38%). CONCLUSION: There is a wide variability in the availability, training, and scope of practice of PFR units across the country. No standardization or trends could be detected.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Cancellation of responding ALS units by BLS providers: a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: In many emergency medical services (EMS) systems, personnel without advanced life support (ALS) training are authorized to cancel responding ALS units before the ALS personnel arrive and examine the patient. This study was conducted to examine these cancellations in major U.S. cities. METHODS: A survey was mailed to the physician medical directors of the EMS services of the 125 largest U.S. cities, with telephone follow-up of nonresponders. The survey requested information on system structure, and on policies governing cancellation of responding ALS units by non-ALS personnel. RESULTS: Ninety-four cities responded (75%), from 35 states. Nineteen systems (20%) are all-ALS with no basic life support (BLS) tier, and these were eliminated. Of the remaining 75 systems, eight (11%) use BLS ambulances (BLS-A), 35 (47%) use BLS first responders (BLS-FR), and 32 (43%) use both. Of these 75 systems, 60 (80%) allow cancellation of responding ALS units by BLS personnel. Only 24 of these (40%) have written protocols for such cancellations, and only 12 of those (50%) involve specific medical criteria, with two (8%) relying on the best judgment of the BLS personnel with no medical criteria, and another eight (33%) allowing cancellation only for logistic reasons. Of the 60 systems that permit cancellation, 13 (22%) perform some type of medical oversight review of all such calls, 26 (43%) review some such calls (median 10%, range 2-80% for the 19 systems specifying a percentage), 15 (25%) do not review any, and six did not specify. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than half of the surveyed EMS systems that permit non-ALS personnel to cancel responding ALS units use written protocols to guide these decisions, and only half of those protocols utilize specific medical criteria. Medical oversight review of these calls is highly variable, with many systems reviewing few or none of these cancellations.

Advanced Cardiac Life Support↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Termination of resuscitation in the prehospital setting for adult patients suffering nontraumatic cardiac arrest. National Association of EMS Physicians Standards and Clinical Practice Committee.

The National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) supports out-of-hospital termination of resuscitation for adult, nontraumatic cardiac arrest patients who have not responded to full resuscitative efforts. The following factors should be considered in establishing termination of resuscitation protocols: 1) Termination of resuscitation may be considered for any adult patient who suffers sudden cardiac death that is likely to be medical. 2) Unwitnessed cardiac arrest with delayed initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) beyond 6 minutes and delayed defibrillation beyond 8 minutes has a poor prognosis. 3) In the absence of "do not resuscitate" or advanced directives, a full resuscitative effort including CPR, definitive airway management, medication administration, defibrillation if necessary, and at least 20 minutes of treatment following Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) guidelines should be performed prior to declaring the patient dead. 4) A patient whose rhythm changes to, or remains in, ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia should have continued resuscitative efforts. Patients in asystole or pulseless electrical activity should be strongly considered for out-of-hospital termination of resuscitation. 5) Logistic factors should be considered, such as collapse in a public place, family wishes, and safety of the crew and public. 6) Online medical direction should be established prior to termination of resuscitation. The decision to terminate efforts should be a consensus between the on-scene paramedic and the online physician. 7) The on-scene providers and family should have access to resources, such as clergy, crisis workers, and social workers. 8) Quality review is necessary to ensure appropriate application of the termination protocol, law enforcement notification, medical examiner or coroner involvement, and family counseling.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Can basic life support personnel safely determine that advanced life support is not needed?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether firefighter/emergency medical technicians-basic (FF/EMT-Bs) staffing basic life support (BLS) ambulances in a two-tiered emergency medical services (EMS) system can safely determine when advanced life support (ALS) is not needed. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study conducted in two academic emergency departments (EDs) receiving patients from a large urban fire-based EMS system. Runs were studied to which ALS and BLS ambulances were simultaneously dispatched, with the patient transported by the BLS unit. Prospectively established criteria for potential need for ALS were used to determine whether the FF/EMT-B's decision to cancel the ALS unit was safe, and simple outcomes (admission rate, length of stay, mortality) were examined. In the system studied, BLS crews may cancel responding ALS units at their discretion; there are no protocols or medical criteria for cancellation. RESULTS: A convenience sample of 69 cases was collected. In 52 cases (75%), the BLS providers indicated that they cancelled the responding ALS unit because they did not feel ALS was needed. Of these, 40 (77%) met study criteria for ALS: 39 had potentially serious chief complaints, nine had abnormal vital signs, and ten had physical exam findings that warranted ALS. Forty-five (87%) received an intervention immediately upon ED arrival that could have been provided in the field by an ALS unit, and 16 (31%) were admitted, with a median length of stay of 3.3 days (range 1.1-73.4 days). One patient died. CONCLUSION: Firefighter/EMT-Bs, working without protocols or medical criteria, cannot always safely determine which patients may require ALS intervention.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Emergency medical services and cultural determinants of an emergency in Karachi, Pakistan.

OBJECTIVES: The study was conducted to understand the prehospital system in Karachi, the mode of transport that adult inpatients use to reach the emergency departments (EDs), and the barriers to the use of ambulances. METHODS: The study consisted of two parts. The first part involved interviewing the administrators of major ambulance services in Karachi. The second part consisted of a structured interview of randomly selected adult inpatients admitted to one government and one private hospital. RESULTS: Seven ambulance service administrators were interviewed. The interviews revealed that ambulances in Karachi are mainly involved in transporting patients from hospital to hospital or to home. A large number of calls are for transporting dead bodies. A total of 92 patients were interviewed (58 male, 34 female). Admission complaints included abdominal pain (22), blunt trauma (11), penetrating trauma (3), chest pain (6), shortness of breath (4), hematemesis (3), acute focal weakness (4), high fever (4), and other (32). The most common mode of transport to the ED was taxi (53, 58%), followed by private car (21, 23%). Specific reasons for not using ambulances included a perception that the patient was not sick enough (34, 45%), slow response of the ambulance services (17, 23%), not knowing how to find one (8, 11%), and the high cost (6, 8%). CONCLUSION: In case of a medical emergency, most people in Karachi do not use ambulances. The reasons for this low usage include not only poor accessibility, but also cultural barriers and lack of education in recognition of danger signs.

Administrative Personnel↗
PubMedDate not supplied

No pain, no gain?

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Analgesics↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Emergency medical services equipment hygiene practices.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether emergency medical services (EMS) systems adhere to accepted equipment hygiene standards. METHODS: Mail surveys were sent to the physician medical directors of the EMS systems of the 125 most populous cities in the United States. RESULTS: Eighty-five surveys (68%) were returned. Seventy-three (86%) of the responding services have a policy addressing equipment decontamination, and 32 of these (44%) have an accompanying quality assurance program. Seventy-nine (93%) utilize either alcohol or a commercial disinfectant (A/CD) on noncritical items when visibly contaminated with blood. However, only 32 of those agencies (41%) use soap and water in addition to A/CD. Another nine (11%) exchange contaminated items at the hospital, one (1%) uses other methods, and two (2%) respondents did not know. Seventy-six (89%) of the responding agencies perform endotracheal intubation. Of the 54 that decontaminate their own blades, 20 (37%) use soap and water in addition to A/CD, 32 (59%) use A/CD alone, and two (4%) use soap and water alone. CONCLUSION: Adherence to accepted hygiene standards among EMS systems in our most populous cities is poor. Many systems do not use soap and water prior to A/CD. Failure to do so may minimize the effectiveness of disinfection. Several systems use A/CD or soap and water alone, neither of which meets current standards for high-level disinfection recommended for items that will come in contact with mucous membranes, such as laryngoscope blades.

Disinfection↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Subcutaneous epinephrine in the prehospital setting.

OBJECTIVES: To outline current practice regarding the prehospital use of subcutaneous epinephrine, and systematically review the existing literature to determine the level of support for its use in the elderly. Many health care personnel are reluctant to administer subcutaneous epinephrine for potentially life-threatening conditions such as asthma and anaphylaxis in older patients. This sytematic review examined the following focused question: "For older patients not known to have coronary artery disease, does administration of subcutaneous epinephrine carry a significant enough risk of cardiovascular side effects to mandate age as a relative contraindication to self-administration or emergency medical services administration in the prehospital setting?" METHODS: The MEDLINE and Health Star databases were searched to identify studies evaluating the use of subcutaneous epinephrine in the treatment of asthma and anaphylaxis. Bibliographies from included studies, known reviews, and textbooks were examined to identify additional studies. The strength of evidence presented in each study was assessed in accordance with the classification system proposed by the American Heart Association's Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee. RESULTS: The review of the literature revealed only three case reports (level VII evidence) that record adverse reactions of epinephrine when used for anaphylaxis and allergy, while several level III and V studies found no adverse effects when used for asthma. No controlled trials documenting adverse effects were found. CONCLUSIONS: The authors did not find significant evidence to contraindicate the use of subcutaneous epinephrine in older patients who are not known to have coronary artery disease, who present with either asthma or allergic reactions.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Hazardous materials preparedness in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted to examine the preparedness of emergency departments (EDs) to safely receive, decontaminate, and treat chemically contaminated patients. METHODS: The safety officers of all 58 acute-care hospitals in the five-county philadelphia metropolitan region were surveyed by mail, with a repeat mailing to nonresponders followed by telephone contact. The 16 survey questions addressed the ability of EDs to safely decontaminate and treat chemically contaminated patients. RESULTS: Thirty-eight of 58 hospitals (66%) returned usable surveys. Of these, 24 (63%) have a written plan for decontamination and treatment of chemically contaminated patients in the ED, and 19 (50%) have a hospital-wide disaster plan that includes contingencies for decontamination and treatment of one or more chemically contaminated patients. Thirteen hospitals (34%) conducted a drill of either of these plans in 1994. Twenty (53%) EDs have a specific treatment area for chemically contaminated patients. A stock of supplies for protecting the ED from secondary contamination is maintained by 16 (42%). While 24 (63%) store personal protective equipment, most of these involve only gowns, gloves, and surgical masks; only 13 provide any type of respiratory protection. Nine respondents were certain that patients brought in by local EMS would have been adequately decontaminated in the field, eight stated that they believed or felt decontamination would be adequate, and 12 were concerned that field decontamination might not be adequate. Eighteen hospitals (47%) reported treating one or more chemically contaminated patients in 1994. The authors believe the return rate reflects reluctance to commit hospital policies to paper. This was confirmed during telephone follow-up of nonrespondents when, for example, one safety officer discussed hazardous materials (hazmat) principles for 40 minutes, but refused to complete the survey. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital hazmat preparedness in this area varies tremendously. A significant proportion of hospitals lack a written plan and equipment to allow the ED to safely and effectively handle the chemically contaminated patient. There is reluctance to discuss this topic.

Data Collection↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Legislative and regulatory description of EMS medical direction: a survey of states.

OBJECTIVE: To assess regulatory trends in EMS medical direction by examining state EMS legislation and regulations, and legal qualifications for medical direction. METHODS: A two-page survey was mailed to all 50 state EMS directors, with a repeat mailing to nonresponders and telephone follow-up as needed. Copies of EMS legislation and regulations were requested to assist in the interpretation of answers to survey questions. The questions focused on two physician roles in the oversight of the practice of paramedics; off-line ALS service medical director (ASMD) and on-line medical command (OLMC). RESULTS: Thirty-nine surveys were returned (78%). Only one state (IL) requires that ASMDs be board-certified in emergency medicine. Thirteen others (33%) permit physicians with primary care specialization or various ACLS/ATLS certifications to serve as ASMDs. Twenty-two states (56%) require only that the ASMD be a physician; three states (8%) have no requirements at all. Eight states (21%) have no requirements for personnel providing OLMC, and another 25 (64%) require only physician licensure. Six states (15%) require various ACLS/ATLS certifications. Several states do not differentiate between the two physician roles. Twenty-four states (62%) provide some type of Good Samaritan protection for medical direction, but in two of these only unpaid medical directors are protected. CONCLUSIONS: There is tremendous variation in regulatory requirements for physician participation in EMS medical direction activities at the ALS level. Few states have specific training or background requirements for the provision of OLMC, and a requirement for board certification in emergency medicine is the exception, not the rule.

Certification↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Injuries to emergency medicine residents on EMS rotations.

OBJECTIVES: To study the incidence and nature of injuries sustained by emergency medicine (EM) residents during EMS rotations, and steps taken at EM residency programs to increase resident safety during field activities. METHODS: An eight-question survey form was mailed to all 114 U.S. EM residency directors, with a second mailing to nonresponders eight weeks after the initial mailing. RESULTS: A total of 105 surveys were returned (92%). Six surveys were from new programs whose residents have not yet rotated on EMS. These were excluded from further analysis, leaving 99 programs. Of these, 91 (92%) reported no injuries. One EM resident died in a helicopter crash in 1985. Seven other injury events were reported: 1) facial lacerations, rib fractures, and a shoulder injury in an ambulance accident; 2) an open finger fracture (crushed by a backboard); 3) contusions and a concussion when an ambulance was struck by a fire engine; 4) a groin pull sustained while entering a helicopter; 5) bilateral metatarsal fractures in a fall; 6) rib fractures, a pneumothorax, and a concussion in an ambulance accident; and 7) "minor injuries" sustained in a crash while responding to a scene in a program-owned response vehicle. Actions taken at residency programs to reduce the risk of injury include the use of ballistic vests (four programs), requiring helmets on flights (five programs), and changing flight experience from mandatory to optional (two programs). Ten programs (10%) reported using ground scene safety lectures, and nine programs (15% of those offering flights) reported various types of flight safety instruction. Sixty-nine programs (70%) reported no formal field safety training or other active steps to increase resident safety on EMS rotations. CONCLUSIONS: Injuries sustained by EM residents during EMS rotations are uncommon but nontrivial, with several serious injuries and one fatality reported. The majority of EM residency programs have no formal safety training programs for EMS rotations.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Current practice in clinical cervical spinal clearance: implication for EMS.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the practice of clinically "clearing" the cervical spine (c-spine) of trauma patients brought to the ED by EMS with cervical immobilization in place, and to examine developing trends in prehospital c-spine clearance. METHODS: A 12-question survey form was mailed to the physician medical directors of 300 randomly selected EDs. Questions examined ED clinical clearance practices, EMS clearance protocols and research, and attitudes toward prehospital clearance. Estimated clinical clearance rates were requested. RESULTS: A total of 173 surveys were returned (58%). At 21 hospitals (12%), c-spine films are obtained for all immobilized trauma patients; clinical clearance is never attempted. Of the remaining 151 hospitals, on average, clinical clearance is attempted for 65.5% of these patients (range 3-100%, interquartile range 50-100%) and is successful (films are not obtained) for 53.7% of attempts (range 0-100%, interquartile range 35-75%). No differences exist in either attempt rate or success rate between trauma centers and non-trauma centers, or between academic/university hospitals, community teaching hospitals, and community non-teaching hospitals (t-test or ANOVA, p > 0.05). Seventy-two respondents (42%) reported significant variation in clinical clearance practice patterns among their ED physicians. Seventy-three respondents (42%) feel that EMS providers should immobilize all trauma patients, while 99 (57%) feel it is reasonable for trained EMS providers to attempt clinical clearance on low-risk trauma patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is tremendous variation in the ED practice of clinically clearing cervical spines. This, and a lack of support from many ED directors, may hinder attempts at development of research and standardized protocols for pre-hospital c-spine clearance.

Algorithms↗