We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
As the prevalence of mental illness increases in the United States, emergency medical services' (EMS) role in the care of the psychiatric patient continues to grow. The goal of EMS systems is safe transport of the psychiatric patient to the hospital for further evaluation and care. The cooperative patient can usually be transported without physical or chemical restraint, or law enforcement assistance. In cases of the extremely violent or agitated patient in whom de-escalation techniques have proved futile, law enforcement may elect to use an electronic control device (ECD) to subdue the patient. Refusal of care in the psychiatric patient poses a challenging dilemma. The violent and agitated patient clearly lacks decision-making capacity. Thus EMS personnel need to determine decision making capacity in the difficult prehospital environment. Organic causes of abnormal behavior, such as hypoglycemia, should always be considered.
Unique ethical issues arise in the practice of emergency medicine, and common ethical problems are often more difficult to address in the emergency department than in other medical settings. This article is Part 2 of the Series “Ethics in the Trenches” and it presents and analyses 2 cases — each dealing with an ethical challenge that emergency physicians are likely to encounter. The first case deals with patient refusal of care. When a patient refuses recommended care, the emergency physician must ensure the patient’s decision is informed and that the patient comprehends the implications of his or her choice. The second case deals with patient involvement in criminal activities. Emergency physicians often encounter patients who have engaged in illegal activities. Although certain activities must be reported, physicians should be mindful of their responsibility to protect patient privacy and confidentiality.
Rock and contemporary music concerts are popular, recurrent events requiring on-site medical staffing.
Study objective:
To describe a novel severity score used to stratify the level of acuity of patients presenting to first-aid stations at these events.
Methods:
Retrospective review of charts generated at the first-aid stations of five major rock concerts within a 60,000 spectator capacity, outdoor, professional sports stadium. Participants included all concert patrons presenting to the stadiums first-aid stations as patients. Data were collected on patient demographics, history of drug or ethanol usage while at the concert event, first-aid station time, treatment rendered, diagnosis, and disposition. All patients evaluated were retrospectively assigned a “DRUG-ROCK” Injury Severity Score (DRISS) to stratify their level of acuity. Individual concert events and patient dispositions were compared statistically using chi-square, Fisher's exact, and the ANOVA Mean tests.
Results:
Approximately 250,000 spectators attended the five concert events. First-aid stations evaluated 308 patients (utilization rate of 1.2 per 1,000 patrons). The most common diagnosis was minor trauma (130; 42%), followed in frequency by ethanol/illicit drug intoxication (98; 32%). The average time in the first-aid station was 23.5±22.5 minutes (± standard deviation; range: 5–150 minutes). Disposition of patients included 100 (32.5%) who were treated and released; 98 (32%) were transported by paramedics to emergency departments (EDs); and 110 (35.5%) signed-out against medical advise (AMA), refusing transport. The mean DRISS was 4.1 (±2.65). Two-thirds (67%) of the study population were ranked as mild by DRISS criteria (score = 1–4), with 27% rated as moderate (score = 5–9), and 6% severe (score >10). The average of severity scores was highest (6.5) for patients transported to hospitals, and statistically different from the scores of the average of the treated and released and AMA groups (p <0.005).
Conclusion:
The DRISS was useful in stratifying the acuity level of this patient population. This severity score may serve as a potential triage mechanism for future mass gatherings such as rock concerts.
Evaluate the experience of paramedic personnel at mass gatherings in the absence of on-site physicians.
Design:
Retrospective review of patients evaluated by paramedics with emergency medical services (EMS) medical control.
Setting:
First-aid facility operated by paramedics at an outdoor amphitheater involving 32 (predominantly rock music) concerts in accordance with the Chicago EMS System, June through September 1990.
Participants:
A total of 438 patients (≤0.1% on-site population) were evaluated.
Interventions:
Presentations to the first-aid facility were viewed as if the patient was presenting to an ambulance. Transportation to an emergency department was strongly recommended for all encounters. Time from presentation to the first-aid facility until disposition was limited to 30 minutes in the absence of on-line [direct] medical control. Refusal of care was accepted. On-line [direct] medical control with the EMS resource hospital was initiated as needed. Off-line [indirect] medical control consisted of weekly reviews of all patient records and periodic site visits.
Results:
Of the 438 patients, 366 (84%) refused further care, including 31 patients (7%) who refused advanced life support (ALS) level care. Seventy-two patients (16%) were transported; 37 by ALS and 35 by basic life support (BLS) units. On-line [direct] medical control was initiated in all ALS patients that were transported as well as for those who refused care. No known deaths or adverse outcomes occurred, based on lack of inquiries or complaints from the local EMS system, emergency departments receiving transported patients, law enforcement agencies, 9-1-1 emergency response providers, venue management, or security. No request for medical records from law firms have occurred. Problems noted initially were poor documentation and a tendency not to document all encounters (e.g., dispensing band-aids, tampons, earplugs, etc.). Concerns noted included: initial and subsequent vital signs, times of arrival, interventions, dispositions, and patient conditions of refusal. Specific problems with documentation of refusals at disposition included: appropriate mental status, speech, and gait; release with an accompanying family member or friend; and parental notification and approval of care for minors. There also was an initial tendency not to establish on-line [direct] medical control for ALS refusal or BLS medicolegal issues.
Conclusions:
The medical system configuration modeled after practices of prehospital care, demonstrates physicians did not need to be onsite when adequate EMS medical control existed with less than 30 minutes on-scene time.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.