Use of peripheral vascular access in the prehospital setting: is there room for improvement?
Out-of-hospital
Paramedic
Peripheral vascular access
Prehospital
Journal
BMC emergency medicine
ISSN: 1471-227X
Titre abrégé: BMC Emerg Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968543
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 06 2020
09 06 2020
Historique:
received:
21
11
2019
accepted:
25
05
2020
entrez:
11
6
2020
pubmed:
11
6
2020
medline:
6
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Previous studies have shown that prehospital insertion of peripheral vascular access is highly variable. The aim of this study is to establish the proportion of peripheral vascular access placement and its use with regard to both the severity of cases and the main problem suspected by the paramedics involved. Over-triage was considered to have taken place where peripheral vascular access was placed but unused and these cases were specifically analysed in order to evaluate the possibility of improving current practice. This is a one-year (2017) retrospective study conducted throughout one State of Switzerland. Data were extracted from the state's public health service database, collected electronically by paramedics on RescueNet® from Siemens. The following data were collected and analyzed: sex, age, main diagnosis suspected by paramedics and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics score (NACA) to classify the severity of cases. A total of 33,055 missions were included, 29,309 (88.7%) with a low severity. A peripheral vascular access was placed in 8603 (26.0%) cases. Among those, 3948 (45.9%) were unused and 2626 (66.5%) of these patients had a low severity score. Opiates represent 48.3% of all medications given. The most frequent diagnosis among unused peripheral vascular access were: respiratory distress (12.7%), neurological deficit without coma or trauma (9.6%), cardiac condition with thoracic pain and without trauma or loss of consciousness (9.6%) and decreased general condition of the patient (8.5%). Peripheral vascular access was set in 26% of patients, nearly half of which were unused. To reduce over-triage, special attention should be dedicated to cases defined by EMS on site as low severity, as they do not require placement of a peripheral vascular access as a precautionary measure. Alternative routes, such as the intra-nasal route, should be promoted, particularly for analgesia, whose efficiency is well documented. Emergency medical services medical directors may also consider modifying protocols of acute clinical situations when data show that mandatory peripheral vascular access, in stroke cases for example, is almost never used.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Previous studies have shown that prehospital insertion of peripheral vascular access is highly variable. The aim of this study is to establish the proportion of peripheral vascular access placement and its use with regard to both the severity of cases and the main problem suspected by the paramedics involved. Over-triage was considered to have taken place where peripheral vascular access was placed but unused and these cases were specifically analysed in order to evaluate the possibility of improving current practice.
METHODS
This is a one-year (2017) retrospective study conducted throughout one State of Switzerland. Data were extracted from the state's public health service database, collected electronically by paramedics on RescueNet® from Siemens. The following data were collected and analyzed: sex, age, main diagnosis suspected by paramedics and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics score (NACA) to classify the severity of cases.
RESULTS
A total of 33,055 missions were included, 29,309 (88.7%) with a low severity. A peripheral vascular access was placed in 8603 (26.0%) cases. Among those, 3948 (45.9%) were unused and 2626 (66.5%) of these patients had a low severity score. Opiates represent 48.3% of all medications given. The most frequent diagnosis among unused peripheral vascular access were: respiratory distress (12.7%), neurological deficit without coma or trauma (9.6%), cardiac condition with thoracic pain and without trauma or loss of consciousness (9.6%) and decreased general condition of the patient (8.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
Peripheral vascular access was set in 26% of patients, nearly half of which were unused. To reduce over-triage, special attention should be dedicated to cases defined by EMS on site as low severity, as they do not require placement of a peripheral vascular access as a precautionary measure. Alternative routes, such as the intra-nasal route, should be promoted, particularly for analgesia, whose efficiency is well documented. Emergency medical services medical directors may also consider modifying protocols of acute clinical situations when data show that mandatory peripheral vascular access, in stroke cases for example, is almost never used.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32517763
doi: 10.1186/s12873-020-00340-z
pii: 10.1186/s12873-020-00340-z
pmc: PMC7285568
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
46Références
S Afr Med J. 2014 Jul 22;104(9):615-8
pubmed: 25212402
J Emerg Med. 2009 May;36(4):357-62
pubmed: 18571888
Eur J Emerg Med. 2017 Dec;24(6):450-454
pubmed: 26982205
Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2005 Jan;24(1):31-5
pubmed: 15661462
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2000 Apr-Jun;4(2):156-63
pubmed: 10782605
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Dec 23;64(24):e139-e228
pubmed: 25260718
N Engl J Med. 2012 Feb 16;366(7):591-600
pubmed: 22335736
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2017 May;61(5):557-565
pubmed: 28317095
Prehosp Emerg Care. 1998 Oct-Dec;2(4):312-6
pubmed: 9799021
Ann Emerg Med. 2012 Apr;59(4):296-303
pubmed: 21872970
Med J Aust. 2013 Jun 3;198(10):551-3
pubmed: 23725270
Eur J Emerg Med. 2019 Oct;26(5):366-372
pubmed: 30308574
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2006 Jul;23(7):594-7
pubmed: 16507183
Am J Emerg Med. 2007 Oct;25(8):911-7
pubmed: 17920976
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2015 Sep 15;72(18):1544-54
pubmed: 26346210