Unnecessary Use of Red Lights and Sirens in Pediatric Transport.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 25.5 million pediatric patients are treated in Emergency Departments around the United States annually. Roughly 7% of these patients are transported by ambulance; of these, approximately 7% arrive in ambulances running red lights and sirens (RLS). Compared to those transporting without RLS, emergency vehicles employing RLS are involved in more accidents and are associated with more fatalities. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the use of RLS in pediatric transports and identify factors associated with unnecessary use of RLS. METHODS: As part of the Children's Safety Initiative (CSI-EMS), a large, multi-phased National Institutes of Health-funded study, we conducted a medical record review of all pediatric RLS transports in an urban EMS system over a 4-year period (2008-11). A standardized chart abstraction tool was adapted for the out-of-hospital setting and pilot tested. Charts were independently reviewed by physicians and paramedics, with disagreements arbitrated by a pediatric emergency physician. Reviewers were asked to judge whether RLS transport was necessary and to provide comments justifying their position. Descriptive statistics were used to measure the frequency of unnecessary transports and logistic regression analysis was employed to identify factors associated with unnecessary use of RLS. RESULTS: Of 490 RLS transports, experts identified 96 (19.6%) as unnecessary use of RLS. Necessary and unnecessary RLS transports had similar patient sex and duration of transport, though unnecessary use of RLS tended to increase with patient age. The call reasons that represented the largest proportion of unnecessary RLS transports were trauma (49.0%), respiratory distress (16.7%), and seizure/altered mental status (11.5%). Compared with necessary RLS transports, unnecessary RLS transports were less likely to require resuscitation, airway management, or medication administration. Univariate analysis revealed that patient vital signs within normal limits were associated with increased risk of unnecessary RLS transport, with the most pronounced effect seen in the normal GCS score group (odds ratio 7.74, p-value 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis identified patient and transport characteristics associated with unnecessary use of RLS. Our results could help serve as the basis for designing and prospectively evaluating protocols for use of RLS, potentially mitigating the risk associated with transport in pediatric patients.

Understanding safety in prehospital emergency medical services for children.

OBJECTIVE: For over a decade, the field of medicine has recognized the importance of studying and designing strategies to prevent safety issues in hospitals and clinics. However, there has been less focus on understanding safety in prehospital emergency medical services (EMS), particularly in regard to children. Roughly 27.7 million (or 27%) of the annual emergency department visits are by children under the age of 19, and about 2 million of these children reach the hospital via EMS. This paper adds to our qualitative understanding of the nature and contributors to safety events in the prehospital emergency care of children. METHODS: We conducted four 8- to 12-person focus groups among paid and volunteer EMS providers to understand 1) patient safety issues that occur in the prehospital care of children, and 2) factors that contribute to these safety issues (e.g., patient, family, systems, environmental, or individual provider factors). Focus groups were conducted in rural and urban settings. Interview transcripts were coded for overarching themes. RESULTS: Key factors and themes identified in the analysis were grouped into categories using an ecological approach that distinguishes between systems, team, child and family, and individual provider level contributors. At the systems level, focus group participants cited challenges such as lack of appropriately sized equipment or standardized pediatric medication dosages, insufficient human resources, limited pediatric training and experience, and aspects of emergency medical services culture. EMS team level factors centered on communication with other EMS providers (both prehospital and hospital). Family and child factors included communication barriers and challenging clinical situations or scene characteristics. Finally, focus group participants highlighted a range of provider level factors, including heightened levels of anxiety, insufficient experience and training with children, and errors in assessment and decision making. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our study suggest that, just as in hospital medicine, factors at the systems, team, child/family, and individual provider level system contribute to errors in prehospital emergency care. These factors may be modifiable through interventions and systems improvements. Future studies are needed to ascertain the generalizability of these findings and further refine the underlying mechanisms.