ABSTRACT
Background: Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) use has rapidly expanded among internal medicine (IM) physicians in practice and residency training programs. Many benefits have been established; however, studies demonstrating the impact of POCUS on system metrics are few and mostly limited to the emergency department or intensive care setting. The study objective was to evaluate the impact of inpatient POCUS on patient outcomes and hospitalization metrics. Methods: Prospective cohort study of 12,399 consecutive adult admissions to 22 IM teaching attendings, at a quaternary care teaching hospital (7/1/2011-6/30/2015), with or without POCUS available during a given hospitalization. Multivariable regression and propensity score matching (PSM) analyses compared multiple hospital metric outcomes (costs, length of stay, radiology-based imaging, satisfaction, etc.) between the "POCUS available" vs. "POCUS unavailable" groups as well as the "POCUS available" subgroups of "POCUS used" vs. "POCUS not used". Results: Patients in the "POCUS available" vs. "POCUS unavailable" group had lower mean total and per-day hospital costs ($17,474 vs. $21,803, p<0.001; $2,805.88 vs. $3,557.53, p<0.001), lower total and per-day radiology cost ($705.41 vs. $829.12, p<0.001; $163.11 vs. $198.53, p<0.001), fewer total chest X-rays (1.31 vs. 1.55, p=0.01), but more chest CTs (0.22 vs 0.15; p=0.001). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 5.77 days (95% CI = 5.63, 5.91) in the "POCUS available" group vs. 6.08 95% CI (5.66, 6.51) in the "POCUS unavailable" group (p=0.14). Within the "POCUS available" group, cost analysis with a 4:1 PSM (including LOS as a covariate) compared patients receiving POCUS vs. those that could have but did not, and also showed total and per-day cost savings in the "POCUS used" subgroup ($15,082 vs. 15,746; p<0.001 and $2,685 vs. $2,753; p=0.04). Conclusions: Availability and selected use of POCUS was associated with a meaningful reduction in total hospitalization cost, radiology cost, and chest X-rays for hospitalized patients.
ABSTRACT
Abstract Introduction. Data on the clinical interventions performed by emergency medical responder firefighters (EMRFs) are limited outside the context of cardiac arrest. We sought to understand the broader medical role of firefighters by examining fire-ambulance arrival order and documenting specific interventions provided by firefighters with advanced EMR training. Methods. A secondary analysis was conducted using electronic patient care records from a single ambulance service and two municipal fire departments that partner to provide emergency response in two suburbs of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Firefighters in both municipalities are dispatched to all medical calls, regardless of severity, and receive training in the following advanced EMR skills: intravenous line placement, administration of oral nitroglycerin and aspirin, placement of supraglottic airways, administration of albuterol via nebulizer, and injections of intramuscular glucagon and epinephrine. Time stamps for unit arrival on scene were used to determine arrival order and to quantify fire lead time (i.e., the interval EMRFs were on scene before paramedics). Results. Fire and ambulance records were linked for 10,403 patient encounters that occurred over 2.5 years. EMRFs arrived first in 9,001 calls (88%) with an average fire lead time of 4.5 minutes. In the two communities, firefighters performed at least one of the six advanced training interventions in 688 patient encounters (7.6%) when they reached the patient first, the most frequent being intravenous line placement (n = 340; 3.8%) and administration of oral nitroglycerin or aspirin (n = 303; 3.4%). EMRFs arrived first to 96 cases of cardiac arrest and performed chest compressions in 78%, automated external defibrillator use in 44%, supraglottic airway placement in 32%, and intravenous line starts in 18%. A modest positive association was observed between increasing fire lead time and use of cardiac arrest interventions by EMRFs. Conclusions. EMRFs performed advanced EMR training interventions in a small fraction of the patients they were able to reach before paramedics, and further study of the clinical significance of these interventions in the hands of this responder group is needed. EMRF training in these communities should continue to emphasize the fervent and consistent application of BLS resuscitation interventions in victims of cardiac arrest.
