Impact of an Electronic App on Resident Responses to Simulated In-Flight Medical Emergencies: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers are often called to respond to in-flight medical emergencies, but lack familiarity with expected supplies, interventions, and ground medical control support. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether a mobile phone app (airRx) improves responses to simulated in-flight medical emergencies. METHODS: This was a randomized study of volunteer, nonemergency resident physician participants who managed simulated in-flight medical emergencies with or without the app. Simulations took place in a mock-up cabin in the simulation center. Standardized participants played the patient, family member, and flight attendant roles. Live, nonblinded rating was used with occasional video review for data clarification. Participants participated in two simulated in-flight medical emergencies (shortness of breath and syncope) and were evaluated with checklists and global rating scales (GRS). Checklist item success rates, key critical action times, GRS, and pre-post simulation confidence in managing in-flight medical emergencies were compared. RESULTS: There were 29 participants in each arm (app vs control; N=58) of the study. Mean percentages of completed checklist items for the app versus control groups were mean 56.1 (SD 10.3) versus mean 49.4 (SD 7.4) for shortness of breath (P=.001) and mean 58 (SD 8.1) versus mean 49.8 (SD 7.0) for syncope (P<.001). The GRS improved with the app for the syncope case (mean 3.14, SD 0.89 versus control mean 2.6, SD 0.97; P=.003), but not the shortness of breath case (mean 2.90, SD 0.97 versus control mean 2.81, SD 0.80; P=.43). For timed checklist items, the app group contacted ground support faster for both cases, but the control group was faster to complete vitals and basic exam. Both groups indicated higher confidence in their postsimulation surveys, but the app group demonstrated a greater increase in this measure. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the airRx app prompted some actions, but delayed others. Simulated performance and feedback suggest the app is a useful adjunct for managing in-flight medical emergencies.

Cross-Sectional Survey of Physicians on Providing Volunteer Care for In-Flight Medical Events.

BACKGROUND: Airline carriers have equipment, procedures, and protocols in place to handle in-flight medical events (IFMEs). Community physicians may be asked for aid during IFMEs. Cross-Sectional Survey of Physicians on Providing Volunteer Care for In-Flight Medical Events surveyed self-assessed awareness and knowledge, perceived barriers, and suggestions for improving responses to IFMEs. METHODS: We composed a survey regarding clinicians' self-assessed understanding of in-flight resources, procedures, flight environmental issues, and Good Samaritan protections. The survey was distributed primarily via electronic mail to medical staff list serves to a total of approximately 1300 physicians representing 2 health networks that serve urban, suburban, and rural areas in both inpatient and outpatient settings. RESULTS: Total number of responses was 418. Physician response rate was 29.2% (379/1300). In 3% (39/1300), the responder either failed to indicate their background or was another type of health care professional (e.g., dentist, medical student, physician assistant). Of the physicians, 37.5% (142/379) were primary care and 42% (177/418) of responders reported at least one experience of being asked to volunteer. When asked how well they understand the protocols with which medical events are handled, 64% (262/412) responded "not at all" and 23% (94/412) reported "a little" knowledge. Only 56% (223/397) answered that 75% or more of U.S. flights have ground medical support available. There were 73% (298/411) who believed airlines were required to have medical supplies, but 54% (222/410) reported no knowledge of supplies available. A total of 69% (279/403) believed or were sure that the U.S. has a Good Samaritan law that applies to IFMEs. DISCUSSION: Many physicians lack basic knowledge about IFMEs. Responders may assist more effectively if better informed about protocols and the availability of ground medical support. Education and timely information support are recommended.Chatfield E, Bond WF, McCay B, Thibeault C, Alves PM, Squillante M, Timpe J, Cook CJ, Bertino RE. Cross-Sectional Survey of Physicians on Providing Volunteer Care for In-Flight Medical Events. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2017; 88(9):876-879.

Induced Hypothermia in Neurocritical Care: A Review.

Induced hypothermia (IH) continues to become a more prevalent treatment modality in neurocritical care. Reducing core temperature has been shown to protect brain tissue during injury and disease. IH has been particularly beneficial in the medical management of refractory intracranial hypertension and malignant cerebral edema. These pathologies are often the result of diffuse cerebral edema after traumatic brain injury, malignant ischemic stroke, or intracerebral hemorrhage. Although there are many benefits to IH, it is not without complications. Chief among these is shivering, which decreases oxygen delivery to brain tissue, increases metabolic demands, and consequently reduces nutrient delivery. This article will review indications for IH administration, methods of providing IH, nursing responsibilities, and identifying and/or managing complications.

Intravenous iron administration strategies and anemia management in hemodialysis patients.

Background: The effect of maintenance intravenous (IV) iron administration on subsequent achievement of anemia management goals and mortality among patients recently initiating hemodialysis is unclear. Methods: We performed an observational cohort study, in adult incident dialysis patients starting on hemodialysis. We defined IV administration strategies over a 12-week period following a patient's initiation of hemodialysis; all those receiving IV iron at regular intervals were considered maintenance, and all others were considered non-maintenance. We used multivariable models adjusting for demographics, clinical and treatment parameters, iron dose, measures of iron stores and pro-infectious and pro-inflammatory parameters to compare these strategies. The outcomes under study were patients' (i) achievement of hemoglobin (Hb) of 10-12 g/dL, (ii) more than 25% reduction in mean weekly erythropoietin stimulating agent (ESA) dose and (iii) mortality, ascertained over a period of 4 weeks following the iron administration period. Results: Maintenance IV iron was administered to 4511 patients and non-maintenance iron to 8458 patients. Maintenance IV iron administration was not associated with a higher likelihood of achieving an Hb between 10 and 12 g/dL {adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-1.09]} compared with non-maintenance, but was associated with a higher odds of achieving a reduced ESA dose of 25% or more [OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.18-1.49)] and lower mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73 (95% CI 0.62-0.86)]. Conclusions: Maintenance IV iron strategies were associated with reduced ESA utilization and improved early survival but not with the achievement of Hb targets.