Prehospital Testing and Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2: A Special Report from the Sacramento (California USA) Mobile Integrated Health Unit.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has killed nearly 800,000 Americans since early 2020. The disease has disproportionately affected older Americans, men, persons of color, and those living in congregate living facilities. Sacramento County (California USA) has used a novel Mobile Integrated Health Unit (MIH) to test hundreds of patients who dwell in congregate living facilities, including skilled nursing facilities (SNF), residential care facilities (ie, assisted living facilities [ALF] and board and care facilities [BCF]), and inpatient psychiatric facilities (PSY), for SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: The MIH was authorized and rapidly created at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic as a joint venture between the Sacramento County Department of Public Health (SCDPH) and several fire-based Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agencies within the county to perform SARS-CoV-2 testing and surveillance in a prehospital setting at a number of congregate living facilities. All adult patients (≥18 years) who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection by the MIH from March 31, 2020 through April 30, 2020 and lived in congregate living facilities were included in this retrospective descriptive cohort. Demographic and laboratory data were collected to describe the cohort of patients tested by the MIH. RESULTS: During the study period, the MIH tested a total of 323 patients from 15 facilities in Sacramento County. The median age of patients tested was 66 years and the majority were female (72%). Overall, 72 patients (22%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in congregate living settings, a higher rate of positivity than was measured across the county during the same time period. CONCLUSION: The MIH was a novel method of epidemic surveillance that succeeded in delivering effective and efficient testing to patients who reside in congregate living facilities and was able to accurately identify pockets of infection within otherwise low prevalence areas. Cooperative prehospital models are an effective model to deliver out-of-hospital testing and disease surveillance that may serve as a blueprint for community-based care delivery for a number of disease states and future epidemics or pandemics.

Can Mobile Integrated Health Care Paramedics Safely Conduct Medical Clearance of Behavioral Health Patients in a Pilot Project? A Report of the First 1000 Consecutive Encounters.

BACKGROUND: Mental health patients wait lengthy periods in emergency departments for disposition. This delay is secondary to the process of medical clearance and then placement in an appropriate psychiatric specialty center. ACEP clinical policy questions the necessity of laboratory investigation for medical clearance and favors history and physical exam to determine safe disposition to mental health facilities. This manuscript explores if specially trained paramedics can effectively employ triage algorithms to determine proper disposition of patients suffering an acute mental health crisis in a 9-1-1 system. METHODS: Six paramedics working for AMR in Stanislaus County, California underwent 180 hours of specialized training to become Mobile Integrated Healthcare Paramedics (MIHPs). Their training detailed the use of two algorithms designed to identify patients that require evaluation in an emergency department versus those that can be triaged directly to a licensed mental health facility. Patients aged 18-59 with a suspected mental health crisis who are encountered via the 9-1-1 system, law enforcement or who walk in to the mental health facility for treatment were eligible. All patients in the study were evaluated with the well person algorithm (WPA). Those that passed the WPA were evaluated using the mental health clearance algorithm (MCHA). MIHPs directed patients to either the ED or the mental health facility based upon the evaluation results of the WPA and MHCA. RESULTS: 1006 patients were evaluated between September 2015 and December 2017. 404 patients failed one or more components of the WPA or MHCA. 326 patients passed both the WPA and the MHCA, but were ultimately transported to a local emergency department, most often because of lack of available psychiatric beds in the community. 276 patients were transported directly to a psychiatric facility. Of these, 10 returned to the emergency department within 6 hours, but none of the 10 were admitted for a previously unidentified medical or traumatic condition. CONCLUSION: Specially trained paramedics can effectively employ triage algorithms to screen and select patients experiencing an acute mental health crisis for transport directly to psychiatric treatment facilities.

The Incidence of Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage in Head-Injured Older Adults Transported by EMS with and without Anticoagulant or Antiplatelet Use.

Field triage guidelines recommend transport of head-injured patients on anticoagulants or antiplatelets to a higher-level trauma center based on studies suggesting a high incidence of traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICH). We compared the incidence of tICH in older adults transported by emergency medical services (EMS) with and without anticoagulation or antiplatelet use and evaluated the accuracies of different sets of field triage criteria to identify tICH. This was a prospective, observational study at five EMS agencies and 11 hospitals. Older adults (≥55 years) with head trauma and transported by EMS from August 2015 to September 2016 were eligible. EMS providers completed standardized data forms and patients were followed through emergency department (ED) or hospital discharge. We enrolled 1304 patients; 1147 (88%) received a cranial computed tomography (CT) scan and were eligible for analysis. Four hundred thirty-four (33%) patients had anticoagulant or antiplatelet use and 112 (10%) had tICH. The incidence of tICH in patients with (11%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8%-14%) and without (9%, 95% CI 7%-11%) anticoagulant or antiplatelet use was similar. Anticoagulant or antiplatelet use was not predictive of tICH on adjusted analysis. Steps 1-3 criteria alone were not sensitive in identifying tICH (27%), whereas the addition of anticoagulant or antiplatelet criterion improved sensitivity (63%). Other derived sets of triage criteria were highly sensitive (>98%) but poorly specific (<11%). The incidence of tICH was similar between patients with and without anticoagulant or antiplatelet use. Use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications was not a risk factor for tICH. We were unable to identify a set of triage criteria that was accurate for trauma center need.

Do EMS Providers Accurately Ascertain Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Use in Older Adults with Head Trauma?

OBJECTIVE: Prehospital provider assessment of the use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications in older adults with head trauma is important. These patients are at increased risk for traumatic intracranial hemorrhage and therefore field triage guidelines recommend transporting these patients to centers capable of rapid evaluation and treatment. Our objective was to evaluate EMS ascertainment of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medication use in older adults with head trauma. METHODS: A retrospective study of older adults with head trauma was conducted throughout Sacramento County. All 5 transporting EMS agencies and all 11 hospitals in the county were included in the study, which ran from January 2012 to December 2012. Patients ≥55 years who were transported to a hospital by EMS after head trauma were included. We excluded patients transferred between two facilities, patients with penetrating head trauma, prisoners, and patients with unmatched hospital data. Anticoagulant and antiplatelet use were categorized as: warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban), aspirin, and other antiplatelet agents (e.g., clopidogrel and ticagrelor). We calculated the percent agreement and kappa statistic for binary variables between EMS and emergency department (ED)/hospital providers. A kappa statistic ≥0.60 was considered acceptable agreement. RESULTS: After excluding 174 (7.6%) patients, 2,110 patients were included for analysis; median age was 73 years (interquartile range 62-85 years) and 1,259 (60%) were male. Per ED/hospital providers, the use of any anticoagulant or antiplatelet agent was identified in 595 (28.2%) patients. Kappa statistics between EMS and ED/hospital providers for the specific agents were: 0.76 (95% CI 0.71-0.82) for warfarin, 0.45 (95% CI 0.19-0.71) for DOAC agents, 0.33 (95% CI 0.28-0.39) for aspirin, and 0.51 (95% CI 0.42-0.60) for other antiplatelet agents. CONCLUSIONS: The use of antiplatelet or anticoagulant medications in older adults who are transported by EMS for head trauma is common. EMS and ED/hospital providers have acceptable agreement with preinjury warfarin use but not with DOAC, aspirin, and other antiplatelet use.

Minimizing transfer time to an ST segment elevation myocardial infarction-receiving center: a modified Delphi consensus.

Of patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), approximately two thirds present to a hospital not capable of percutaneous coronary intervention. Transfer to a STEMI-receiving center delays time to reperfusion in patients with STEMI, but factors that affect this delay have not been well studied. We performed a 3-round modified Delphi study to identify system practices that minimize transfer time to a STEMI-receiving center. A comprehensive literature review was used to identify candidate system practices. Emergency medical services, emergency medicine, and cardiology experts were invited to participate. Consensus was defined as 80% agreement that a variable was "very important (5)" or "important (4)" with a mean score ≥ 4.25 or 80% agreement that a variable was "not important (1)" or "somewhat important (2)" with a mean score ≤ 1.75. In round 1, participants rated the candidate items and suggested additional items. Individual feedback was provided, and participants discussed items via conference calls before rating them again in round 2. In round 3, participants ranked the consensus items from rounds 1-2 from most to least important, and the mean score for each item was calculated. Of the 98 experts invited, 29 participated in round 1, 22 in round 2, and 14 in round 3. Participants identified 18 system practices that they agree are critical in minimizing transfer time to STEMI-receiving centers, with the most important being performance of a prehospital electrocardiogram and having established transfer protocols. These factors should be considered in the development of STEMI systems of care.

Mechanical CPR devices compared to manual CPR during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and ambulance transport: a systematic review.

AIMS: The aim of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of the published literature to address the question: "In pre-hospital adult cardiac arrest (asystole, pulseless electrical activity, pulseless Ventricular Tachycardia and Ventricular Fibrillation), does the use of mechanical Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) devices compared to manual CPR during Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and ambulance transport, improve outcomes (e.g. Quality of CPR, Return Of Spontaneous Circulation, Survival)". METHODS: Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library (including Cochrane database for systematic reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, and AHA EndNote Master Library were systematically searched. Further references were gathered from cross-references from articles and reviews as well as forward search using SCOPUS and Google scholar. The inclusion criteria for this review included manikin and human studies of adult cardiac arrest and anti-arrhythmic agents, peer-review. Excluded were review articles, case series and case reports. RESULTS: Out of 88 articles identified, only 10 studies met the inclusion criteria for further review. Of these 10 articles, 1 was Level of Evidence (LOE) 1, 4 LOE 2, 3 LOE 3, 0 LOE 4, 2 LOE 5. 4 studies evaluated the quality of CPR in terms of compression adequacy while the remaining six studies evaluated on clinical outcomes in terms of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to discharge and Cerebral Performance Categories (CPC). 7 studies were supporting the clinical question, 1 neutral and 2 opposing. CONCLUSION: In this review, we found insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of mechanical CPR devices in settings of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and during ambulance transport. While there is some low quality evidence suggesting that mechanical CPR can improve consistency and reduce interruptions in chest compressions, there is no evidence that mechanical CPR devices improve survival, to the contrary they may worsen neurological outcome.