Why do infants need out-of-hospital emergency medical services? A retrospective, population-based study.
Ambulance
Emergency department
Emergency medical services
Infant
Pediatric emergency care
Prehospital emergency care
Journal
Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine
ISSN: 1757-7241
Titre abrégé: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101477511
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Jan 2021
07 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
11
02
2020
accepted:
24
11
2020
entrez:
8
1
2021
pubmed:
9
1
2021
medline:
18
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The challenges encountered in emergency medical services (EMS) contacts with children are likely most pronounced in infants, but little is known about their out-of-hospital care. Our primary aim was to describe the characteristics of EMS contacts with infants. The secondary aims were to examine the symptom-based dispatch system for nonverbal infants, and to observe the association of unfavorable patient outcomes with patient and EMS mission characteristics. In a population-based 5-year retrospective cohort of all 1712 EMS responses for infants (age < 1 year) in Helsinki, Finland (population 643,000, < 1-year old population 6548), we studied 1) the characteristics of EMS missions with infants; 2) mortality within 12 months; 3) pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admissions; 4) medical state of the infant upon presentation to the emergency department (ED); 5) any medication or respiratory support given at the ED; 6) hospitalization; and 7) surgical procedures during the same hospital visit. 1712 infants with a median age of 6.7 months were encountered, comprising 0.4% of all EMS missions. The most common complaints were dyspnea, low-energy falls, and choking. Two infants died on-scene. The EMS transported 683 (39.9%) infants. One (0.1%) infant died during the 12-month follow-up period. Ninety-one infants had abnormal clinical examination upon arrival at the ED. PICU admissions (n = 28) were associated with young age (P < 0.01), a history of prematurity or problems in the neonatal period (P = 0.01), and previous EMS contacts within 72 h (P = 0.04). The adult-derived dispatch codes did not associate with the final diagnoses of the infants. Infants form a small but distinct group in pediatric EMS care, with specific characteristics differing from the overall pediatric population. Many EMS contacts with infants were nonurgent or medically unjustified, possibly reflecting an unmet need for other family services. The use of adult-derived symptom codes for dispatching is not optimal for infants. Unfavorable patient outcomes were rare. Risk factors for such outcomes include quickly renewed contacts, young age and health problems in the neonatal period.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The challenges encountered in emergency medical services (EMS) contacts with children are likely most pronounced in infants, but little is known about their out-of-hospital care. Our primary aim was to describe the characteristics of EMS contacts with infants. The secondary aims were to examine the symptom-based dispatch system for nonverbal infants, and to observe the association of unfavorable patient outcomes with patient and EMS mission characteristics.
METHODS
METHODS
In a population-based 5-year retrospective cohort of all 1712 EMS responses for infants (age < 1 year) in Helsinki, Finland (population 643,000, < 1-year old population 6548), we studied 1) the characteristics of EMS missions with infants; 2) mortality within 12 months; 3) pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admissions; 4) medical state of the infant upon presentation to the emergency department (ED); 5) any medication or respiratory support given at the ED; 6) hospitalization; and 7) surgical procedures during the same hospital visit.
RESULTS
RESULTS
1712 infants with a median age of 6.7 months were encountered, comprising 0.4% of all EMS missions. The most common complaints were dyspnea, low-energy falls, and choking. Two infants died on-scene. The EMS transported 683 (39.9%) infants. One (0.1%) infant died during the 12-month follow-up period. Ninety-one infants had abnormal clinical examination upon arrival at the ED. PICU admissions (n = 28) were associated with young age (P < 0.01), a history of prematurity or problems in the neonatal period (P = 0.01), and previous EMS contacts within 72 h (P = 0.04). The adult-derived dispatch codes did not associate with the final diagnoses of the infants.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Infants form a small but distinct group in pediatric EMS care, with specific characteristics differing from the overall pediatric population. Many EMS contacts with infants were nonurgent or medically unjustified, possibly reflecting an unmet need for other family services. The use of adult-derived symptom codes for dispatching is not optimal for infants. Unfavorable patient outcomes were rare. Risk factors for such outcomes include quickly renewed contacts, young age and health problems in the neonatal period.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33413571
doi: 10.1186/s13049-020-00816-8
pii: 10.1186/s13049-020-00816-8
pmc: PMC7789394
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
13Subventions
Organisme : Lastentautien Tutkimussäätiö
ID : not applicable
Organisme : Lastentautien Tutkimussäätiö
ID : not applicable
Références
Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2017 Jun 30;4(2):102-108
pubmed: 28717780
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2016 Mar;60(3):360-9
pubmed: 26489697
J Pediatr. 2018 Aug;199:200-205.e6
pubmed: 29759850
CJEM. 2006 Jan;8(1):6-12
pubmed: 17175623
J Pediatr. 2015 Nov;167(5):1143-8.e1
pubmed: 26297483
BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 28;7(2):e014057
pubmed: 28246139
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2018 May-Jun;22(3):290-299
pubmed: 29023218
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018 Oct 19;26(1):88
pubmed: 30340502
Int J Emerg Med. 2015 Dec;8(1):46
pubmed: 26644131
Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Dec;25(12):1336-1344
pubmed: 30393902
Am J Perinatol. 2019 Dec 31;:
pubmed: 31891952
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010 Oct-Dec;14(4):477-84
pubmed: 20662679
Int Emerg Nurs. 2015 Apr;23(2):133-7
pubmed: 25082416
Anaesthesia. 2020 Mar;75(3):353-358
pubmed: 31828768
J Pediatr Surg. 2020 Jun 5;:
pubmed: 32646665
Ambul Pediatr. 2008 Nov-Dec;8(6):360-7
pubmed: 19084785
Pediatrics. 2020 Jan;145(1):
pubmed: 31857378
J Pediatr Surg. 2016 Feb;51(2):329-32
pubmed: 26563528
BMJ Paediatr Open. 2019 Oct 23;3(1):e000523
pubmed: 31750406
Med Sci Monit. 2017 Aug 28;23:4141-4148
pubmed: 28845042
Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Aug;36(8):1327-1331
pubmed: 29277493
Am J Emerg Med. 1985 Jul;3(4):327-30
pubmed: 4005005
Am J Emerg Med. 2014 Mar;32(3):199-202
pubmed: 24370070
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016 Dec 3;24(1):142
pubmed: 27912778
Adv Neonatal Care. 2019 Aug;19(4):275-284
pubmed: 31268866
Pediatr Neurol. 2015 Apr;52(4):424-7
pubmed: 25682483
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018 Jan 5;26(1):2
pubmed: 29304841
Acad Emerg Med. 2009 Jun;16(6):526-31
pubmed: 19426299
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Jul;99(7):901-908
pubmed: 31943125
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2016;20(2):230-8
pubmed: 26555372