Clients' Satisfaction with Services Provided by Ambulances and Motor Ambulances of Tehran Emergency Medical Services: A Cross-sectional Study.

Background: To improve the quality of services provided by emergency medical services (EMS), a correct understanding of the current situation and analysis of possible problems is required. The purpose of this study was to investigate the level of clients' satisfaction regarding the missions performed by ambulances and motor ambulances (motorlances) of the Tehran EMS center, and also identify the factors affecting their satisfaction. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted for 1 month in Tehran, Iran. All clients in the age range of 18 to 87 years who were approached by Tehran EMS motorlances or ambulances were eligible. Those with wrong registered phone numbers, uninformed callers (passers, coworkers), and those who were not willing to participate in the study were excluded. A valid and reliable researcher-made questionnaire was used to assess the clients' satisfaction. Missions were surveyed routinely, 1 to 2 days following their performance. The questionnaires were filled out by the investigators via a telephone call to the patients or the patients' siblings. The collected data were statistically analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 24.0. An independent t test and 1-way analysis of variance were used to compare the mean satisfaction score between the groups. Other tests, such as the Pearson correlation coefficient, were also used to examine the relationship between quantitative variables. P<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: In total, the data of 1100 missions were analyzed. The age range of the patients was between 1 and 100 years and their mean age was 52.1 ± 19.2 years, and the mean age of interviewees was 44.4 ± 13.4 years (18-87 years); of all the interviewees, 610 (55.5%) were women. The overall satisfaction of people with the Tehran EMS was rated as "very satisfied" in 78.5% of the cases; However, 11.2% of the participants had moderate and low satisfaction. We found that overall satisfaction was related to dependence on the health group (p≤0.001), educational status (p=0.006), economic status (p=0.002), sent vehicle (p=0.040), and diagnosis (p<0.001). Conclusion: Almost 80% of the participants were highly satisfied with the services provided by Tehran EMS motorlances/ambulances, according to this study. Those with a higher educational level, higher socioeconomic class, accurate diagnosis, proper sent car, and health dependency showed a higher level of happiness than the others.

Changes in COVID-19 IgM and IgG antibodies in emergency medical technicians (EMTs).

INTRODUCTION: Serologic testing can provide a safe and fast approach for assessing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. These tests can be utilized as a complementary method in diagnosis and patients' follow-up, and can also be helpful in epidemiological studies. This study aimed to describe temporal changes in the incidence of COVID-19 IgM and IgG antibodies in emergency medical technicians (EMTs) within a specified time period. METHODS: All EMTs working for Tehran Emergency Medical Service (EMS) center during May to September 2020 were eligible for this study. Those EMTs who were suspected/probable/confirmed cases of COVID-19, based on WHO defined criteria and were willing to participate, entered the study. The EMTs underwent serology testing four weeks after the occurrence of exposure (in suspected cases) or onset of their symptoms (in probable/confirmed cases). Cases were further confirmed by RT-PCR and/or lung CT, and antibody testing was performed for the second and third time with 12-week intervals. Finger-stick blood sampling was utilized for the specimen collection in three different phases. Samples were then analyzed by a commercial immunochromatography-based kit for qualitative measurement of serum IgM and IgG antibodies against the COVID-19 S-protein antigen. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-four participants met the inclusion criteria; their mean age was 35.9 (SD = 7.6) years and consisted of 244 (85.9%) males. COVID-19 was confirmed in 169 out of 284 participants. Subsequently, 142 and 122 participants were included in phases 2 and 3 of the study, respectively. The number of seronegative patients exceeded seropositive ones in all three phases. At baseline, 162 (57%) patients were seronegative, 27 (9.5%) were only positive for IgG, 3 (1.1%) were only positive for IgM, and 92 (32.4%) were positive for both antibodies; Seventy-eight (54.9%) were seronegative, and 31 (21.8%) were positive for both antibodies in the second phase; These values were 85 (69.6%) and 8 (6.6%) for the third phase, respectively. Among the people who were positive IgG in the first phase (80 people), 56.3% were still positive in the second phase and 27.5% in both subsequent phases. CONCLUSION: The results of our study show that there is a significant reduction in COVID-19 antibody seropositivity over time.

Antibody Rapid Test Results in Emergency Medical Services Personnel during COVID-19 Pandemic; a Cross Sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Like other infectious diseases, it is expected that COVID-19 will mostly end with the development of neutralizing antibody immunity. This study aimed to evaluate the value of COVID-19 antibody rapid test assessment in emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in Tehran, Iran from 20th March until 20th May 2020. The results of chest computed tomography (CT) scan, and antibody rapid test were compared in EMS personnel with confirmed COVID-19, as well as symptomatic and asymptomatic ones who had exposure to a probable/confirmed COVID-19 teammate. In symptomatic or asymptomatic individuals who were only IgM-positive, chest CT scan or RT-PCR was recommended. RESULTS: A total of 243 EMS personnel with the mean age of 36.14±8.70 (range 21 to 59) years took part in this study (87.7% were males). Most of the participants (73.3%) had history of exposure. One hundred sixty-three EMS personnel were tested using either RT-PCR test or chest CT-scan or both, and 78 (47.9%) of them had at least one positive result. Among the participants who had undergone chest CT-scan and/or RT-PCR test (n=163), 78 had positive chest CT-scan and/or RT-PCR test; of these, 18 individuals had negative results for IgM and IgG. The rate of positive IgM and IgG in participants with positive chest CT-scan was 1.6 or 1.3 times more than those with negative chest CT-scan, respectively (p < 0.05). The percentage of positive results for both IgM and IgG in participants having positive RT-PCR test was 1.7 times more than those having negative RT-PCR test (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Rapid antibody test could help in diagnosis of COVID-19 in asymptomatic or symptomatic EMS personnel who did not undergo RT-PCR test or the test was reported as negative. However, its sensitivity could be enhanced through use along with other diagnostic methods.

Accuracy of the pre-hospital triage tools (qSOFA, NEWS, and PRESEP) in predicting probable COVID-19 patients' outcomes transferred by Emergency Medical Services.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of pre-hospital triage tools including the qSOFA, NEWS, and PRESEP in determining the prognosis of probable COVID-19 patients. METHODS: In this diagnostic accuracy study, all probable COVID-19 patients older than 16-year-old who were transferred to the hospital by the Tehran Emergency Medical Services (EMS) during the first month of the pandemic, entered to the study. The scores of qSOFA, NEWS, and PRESEP were calculated using data gathered while providing pre-hospital care. The primary outcome was death; and the secondary outcomes were ICU admission, length of stay in the ICU, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The data of 557 individuals with the mean age of 56.93±18.31 were analyzed of whom 67.5% were males. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of qSOFA, NEWS, and PRESEP for ICU admission was 0.553, 0.557, and 0.551, respectively. The AUC of qSOFA, NEWS, and PRESEP for death was 0.596, 0.566, and 0.604, respectively. The best obtained cut-off point for qSOFA was a score >0 (the sensitivity and specificity were 25.0 and 85.68%, respectively), for NEWS was a score >2 (the sensitivity and specificity were 83.61 and 32.67%, respectively), and for PRESEP was a score >1 (the sensitivity and specificity were 54.10 and 55.56%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of the current study, it is likely that the available pre-hospital triage tools (qSOFA, NEWS, and PRESEP) do not have proper efficacy to predict death, ICU admission, and disease severity of COVID-19 patients.