The purpose of this study was to determine the complication rates associated with the use of the endotracheal tube (ET) a the use of the esophageal obturator airway/esophageal gastric tube airway (EOA/EGT during the treatment of patients with prehospital cardiac arrest.

A descriptive, quasi-experimental study of 509 consecutive adults, cardiac arrest patients was conducted. Patients were examined prospectively for airway intervention type and complications. Some patients were examined at their final destinations (field, morgue, funeral home), while other patients were examined by EMS providers in the field when airway adjuncts were switched. Also, airways were evaluated for complications by emergency physicians at destination emergency departments.

The airway in use at the time of examination was the esophageal obturator airway (EOA) or esophageal gas lube airway (EGTA) in 208 patients (40.1%); the ET (endotracheal tube) in 232 patients (45.6%); and an oral or nasopha ryngeal airway in 47 patients (9.2%). Twenty-two patients (4.3%) had both an EOA/EGTA and an ET tube in place at the time of the examination. The survival rates were similar between the EOA/EGTA and the ET groups (28% and 32%, respectively). The complication rates overall also were similar, but the serious or potentially lethal complication rate was 3.3 times more common with the use of the EOA/EGTA than with the ET tube (8.7% versus 2.6%, respectively).

The complication rate for the EOA/EGTA is unacceptably high, and careful thought must be given to its continued use. Serious questions also arise concerning the complication rates associated with the use of the ET: is the complication rate of 2.5% acceptable or should other airway alternative be considered for use in prehospital care?

Widely accepted guidelines for use of pharmacologic agents for prehospital intubation have not been fully developed. Toward the goal of formulating specific guidelines, this study sought to determine how well the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score stratifies the need for emergent intubation (within 30 minutes of emergency department arrival or in the prehospital setting).

A one-year, retrospective review of the charts of blunt trauma patients with presumed head injury who presented to the emergency department of a Level 1 trauma center with a GCS score of ≤13 was performed. A total of 120 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

A significant number of patients presenting with a GCS score of ≤9 required emergent intubation. A significant minority of patients presenting with a GCS score of 10–13 required emergent intubation (20%) or had intracranial pathology on head CT scan (23%), and the majority of patients from this subgroup did not require subsequent intubation. Alcohol or substance intoxication and communication barriers such as deafness and language difficulties limited the clinical examination.

Patients with a presenting GCS score of ≤9 represent candidates for the use of pharmacologic agents to facilitate aggressive airway control by well-trained and supervised emergency medical technicians (EMTs). Emergent intubation of patients with a GCS score of 10–13 is problematic. Patients with a presenting GCS score of 10–13 must be evaluated individually and closely monitored. In the emergency department, head CT scans coupled with serial evaluations generally are warranted to assess underlying pathology in patients with a presenting GCS score of 10–13.

To determine the sensitivity of the Prehospital Index (PHI) in identifying patients with severe blood loss, a one-year review was conducted at a regional trauma facility.

The study population consisted of 217 consecutive trauma admissions (ages 3 to 88 years). Patients were managed using standard resuscitation techniques; blood transfusions were ordered at the discretion of attending physicians and did not follow any preplanned protocol. Medical records were examined to determine total blood requiremets for each patient during the first 12 hours of hospitalization, the emergency department (ED) disposition, and final outcome of treatment. The following clinical variables were analyzed (unpaired t-test) to determine their value as predictors of blood loss: age, gender, mechanism of injury, initial vital signs, revised trauma score, PHI, and injury severityscore.

Forty-two percent (92 patients) received transfusions during the first 12 hours of hospitalization. The best predictor of blood loss was the Prehospital Index. Of the total group, 45% had a PHI >3; 77% (75/98) of these patients required transfusion and received an average of 7.1 units of packed cells. Fifty-five percent (119/217) had a PHI ≤3; 86% (102/119) of these patients did not require transfusion.

The data suggest that patients with PHI scores >3 require close hemodynamic monitoring to rule out significant blood loss and may warrant immediate cross-matching on arrival to the ED.

Direct physician observation of advanced life support (ALS) personnel is rare in a demographically diverse state.

Twenty ALS agencies from throughout Arizona.

A board-certified emergency physician performed on-site interviews with the emergency medical services (EMS) supervisor of each agency to approximate the number of days per year that physicians observe ALS personnel in the field.

Only 11 agencies (55%) reported that physicians ever observed ALS personnel. Among all agencies, an estimated total of 84 observer-days occurred per year. The agencies staffed a total of 86 ALS units, resulting in an estimated 0.98 observer-days/unit/year (84/86). On the average, it took 3.4 ALS personnel to staff a given unit over time and the probability that an ALS provider would be on a unit on any given day was 0.29 (1/3.4). The probability of a given provider being observed during one year was approximately 0.29 (0.98 x 0.29). Thus, on the average, an ALS provider would be observed by a physician approximately once every 3.5 years (1/0.29). Among urban agencies, the “average” ALS provider would be observed once every 2.9 years. This compared to a likelihood of in-field observation of only once every 6.7 years for non-urban providers (p = .036).

The skills of ALS providers in Arizona are observed by a physician in the field very infrequently. Although an uncommon occurrence in urban agencies, observation of non-urban ALS personnel occurs even less frequently. In addition, nearly one-half of the agencies surveyed never had a physician-observer. Although a variety of skills evaluation methods exist, it remains unclear whether any method is as useful as direct observation. Future investigations are needed to evaluate whether in-field physician observation impacts skills, patient care, or outcome in EMS systems.

A reported in-field, prospective evaluation of 227 prehospital patient assessments by advanced life support (ALS) emergency medical technicians (EMTs) found a frequent failure to measure vital signs. The objective of this retrospective review was to report the omission frequency of vital signs found in a centralized emergency medical services (EMS) data collection system.

The EMS database contained information from 90,480 optically scanned, prehospital patient encounter forms. Each record identified EMT skill levels, response times, dispatch type, vital signs, medical and trauma information, treatment, and patient disposition. Records for 1989 and 1990 were collected from 92 rural EMS providers who responded to emergency medical and trauma events.

Of 90,480 emergency responses, 14,129 (15.6%) were false alarms, deceased, or canceled without vital patient contact. Valid encounters were documented for 76,351 (84.4%) patient contacts. Systolic blood pressure measurements were not recorded for 13,262 (17.4%) patients. Diastolic blood pressure was not recorded for 14,272 (18.7%) patients. A pulse record was not recorded for 12,125 (15.9%) patients. A ventilatory rate was absent in 12,958 (17.0%) patient records.

This study found a frequent failure by non-metropolitan basic life support (BLS) and advanced life support (ALS) EMTs to record vital signs on prehospital emergency patient encounter forms. It supports a previous report of direct in-field observations of ALS EMTs failing to measure vital signs during patient assessment. The impact of vital sign omissions upon individual patient care can be assessed only by receiving medical control physicians. In the absence of effective emergency physician networking, the statewide magnitude of the problem among BLS and ALS EMTs has not been recognized as a system issue.