Mortality in the Emergency Department and the Effectiveness of Conventional Safety Event Reporting.

Background Patient mortality reviews identify care, system, and process deficiencies. Patient deaths undergo quarterly review in our academic emergency department (ED), whereas in other departments, mortality reviews are requested by the pronouncing physician within 24 hours. In the ED, individual physicians encounter barriers to 24-hour reviews, including feasibility, the perception of futility, re-exposure to traumatic events, and a high frequency of pre-hospital and non-preventable deaths. This quality review aimed to determine the preventable death rate, contributing factors to ED patient mortality, cases requiring further review, and the capture rate of individual case submissions into the patient safety reporting system. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed on all patient deaths occurring in our ED from July 2019 to February 2020. All patients 18 years or older who were pronounced dead in the ED during our data collection period were included. Patients declared deceased pre-hospital, on an inpatient floor, or in the operating room were excluded. Deaths were assessed for characteristics such as sex, presence of a pulse upon arrival, diagnostics and interventions performed, and whether the cause of death was traumatic or medical. Deaths were categorized on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "not preventable" to "likely preventable." The presence or absence of contributing factors and the need for further review were recorded. Results Of the 166 reviewed cases, 87% (n=144) were non-preventable due to a terminal condition upon arrival, 12% (n=20) were non-preventable despite maximal efforts, 0.6% (n=1) were non-preventable despite a medical or systems error, and 0.6% (n=1) were possibly preventable due to a medical or systems error. No cases were definitively preventable. Only 1.2% (n=2) of cases required further safety review. In 55% (n=91) of cases, the patient arrived without a pulse. Medical deaths (60%, n=100) outnumbered traumatic deaths (39%, n=64). The most utilized diagnostic test was ultrasound (67%, n=111), and the most utilized intervention was advanced cardiac life support (59%, n=98). Conclusion There is a high prevalence of unpreventable deaths in the ED (99%, n=164). Only two cases (1.2%) were identified for further patient safety review. Standard safety event reporting practices correctly identified all possibly preventable ED deaths.

Choosing a Vasopressor for a Prehospital Emergency Medical System: Consideration for Agent Selection and Review of Pharmacologic Profiles, Efficacy, and Safety in Treatment of Shock.

INTRODUCTION: Prehospital medical teams encounter patients with varying states of shock that require the use of vasopressors for hemodynamic support during transport. Selection of a vasopressor is challenging due to the absent comparative literature in prehospital medicine, as well as practical limitation of use in an ambulance. AREAS COVERED: This article discusses specific challenges in the delivery of vasopressor support for hemodynamically compromised patients in the prehospital environment. Discussion includes the current state of vasopressor use in prehospital medicine, use of a patient-specific agent selection or "one-vasopressor-fits-all" modality, as well as considerations for each vasopressor based on practical, pharmacologic, and comparative evidence-based evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently many limitations to assessment of shock etiology in the prehospital setting. A "one-vasopressor-fits-all" strategy may be most feasible for most prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) systems. No clear difference in extravasation exists amongst agents. Based on current evidence, norepinephrine may be more efficacious and have a better safety profile than other vasopressors in cardiogenic, distributive, and neurogenic shocks. Due to its suitability for most shocks, norepinephrine is a reasonable agent for EMS systems to employ as a "one-size-fits-all" vasopressor.

Prehospital Laryngeal Tube Airway Device Placement Resulting in Hypopharyngeal Perforation: A Case Report.

A 26-year-old female patient presented in cardiac arrest from presumed opioid overdose. An Ambu King LTS-D laryngeal device was placed by EMS providers for airway management during the resuscitation. There was no documented difficulty with placement and breath sounds and waveform capnography were consistent with appropriate placement. The resuscitation was terminated on scene after extensive resuscitative efforts by the EMS crew. Upon autopsy of the patient, it was discovered that the laryngeal tube device had caused a deep 5 cm perforation to the left piriform recess. The laryngeal tube had bent and was pushed into the perforation in the piriform recess; had the patient had regain of spontaneous circulation this could have caused significant morbidity. Laryngeal tube airway devices have shown increased usage in healthcare settings, in particular in the prehospital arena. Studies of these airway devices have shown they have quick insertion times, high success rates, and low complications. Tongue swelling and minor trauma are common complications of laryngeal tube airway devices. The case report describes a rare, yet potentially life-threatening, complication of laryngeal tube airway device placement- hypopharyngeal injury. If unrecognized, this injury could lead to serious complications. Providers should be aware of the common and uncommon injuries that are associated with prehospital laryngeal tube airway device placement.

Prehospital Dextrose Extravasation Causing Forearm Compartment Syndrome: A Case Report.

CASE: A 57-year-old woman was found at home by paramedics to be hypoglycemic with altered mental status. She had multiple attempts at IV access and eventually a 22G IV was established and D50 was infused into her right forearm. Extravasation of the dextrose was noted after approximately 12 g of the medication was infused. She was given a dose of glucagon intramuscularly and her mental status improved. Shortly after her arrival to the emergency department, she was noted to have findings of compartment syndrome of her forearm at the site of the dextrose extravasation. She was evaluated by plastic surgery and taken to the operating room for emergent fasciotomy. She recovered well from the operation. DISCUSSION: D50 is well known to cause phlebitis and local skin necrosis as a complication. This case illustrates the danger of compartment syndrome after D50 extravasation. It is the first documented case of prehospital dextrose extravasation leading to compartment syndrome. There may be safer alternatives to D50 administration and providers must be acutely aware to monitor for D50 infusion complications.