ABSTRACT
Emergency medical services (EMS) has existed in its modern form for over 50 years. EMS has become a critical public safety net and access point to the larger health care system. Mature EMS systems are in place in most urban areas. However, EMS systems are not as developed in wilderness areas. A barrier to further development of these systems is the lack of an agreed-upon standard of minimum competence and validation of specialized practice. A practice analysis was completed to create such standards. The practice analysis was completed using a multi-step process. A group of subject matter experts constructed a survey of tasks and knowledge needed for wilderness EMS (WEMS) specialty practice. The tasks and knowledge were validated through an industry survey. A total of 947 surveys were submitted for analysis. Of these, 196 were at least 55% complete and used for analysis. North America was heavily represented as a primary practice location with 177 (90.3%) responses out of the 196 total. Of these 177 responses, 164 (92.7%) were from the United States and 12 (6.8%) were from Canada. One hundred seven of the 116 tasks identified by the subject matter expert group were passed by the survey group, and 164 of the 175 knowledge statements were passed by the survey group. An index of agreement (IOA) was calculated and found to be greater than 0.9 for each task and knowledge statement across all subgroups. A content coverage rating was also calculated and the results indicate survey participants felt the content was "adequate" to "well" covered. The survey results were used to construct a pilot examination. Beta testing of the pilot examination was performed. The beta test results were analyzed and a cut score was determined using the Angoff method with a Beuk compromise. The final product of this process is a defensible exam that will certify candidates' cognitive knowledge of the specialty of WEMS. Completion of this practice analysis solidifies WEMS as distinct subspecialty of out-of-hospital medicine. Additionally, it establishes a consensus definition of wilderness paramedicine and standards that may be used by WEMS systems and regulatory entities.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Improper use of camp stoves in enclosed spaces has resulted in fatalities from carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning. Prior research has focused on the CO output of stoves burning white gas, unleaded gas, or kerosene. Stoves burning an isobutane/propane fuel have not been investigated and are the focus of this study. METHODS: Three stoves utilizing isobutane/propane fuel were used to heat a pot of water inside a 3-season tent under controlled settings. Multiple runs with each stove were performed, and CO measurements, in parts per million (ppm), were recorded at 1-min intervals for a total of 15 min using a RAE Systems gas monitor. Data are reported as mean with SD. Repeated measures analysis of variance was utilized to examine changes over time. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant main effect of time and CO level, F (14, 168)=7.6, P<0.001. There was a statistically significant difference between-subjects effect of stove group F (2, 12)=8.6, P=0.005, indicating that CO levels were different depending on the stove. Tukey's post-hoc analyses revealed that stove A had the highest CO levels. The average level of stove A was statistically significantly higher than that of stove B and stove C, with a mean CO level difference of 79 ppm (95% CI, 3-156), P=0.043 and 117 ppm (95% CI, 40-194), P=0.004, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Stoves utilizing isobutane/propane fuel can produce unsafe CO levels and should not be used in enclosed spaces.
