INTRODUCTION: Emergency medical services (EMS) dispatchers have made efforts to determine whether patients are high risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) so that appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) can be donned. A screening tool is valuable as the healthcare community balances protection of medical personnel and conservation of PPE. There is little existing literature on the efficacy of prehospital COVID-19 screening tools. The objective of this study was to determine the positive and negative predictive value of an emergency infectious disease surveillance tool for detecting COVID-19 patients and the impact of positive screening on PPE usage. METHODS: This study was a retrospective chart review of prehospital care reports and hospital electronic health records. We abstracted records for all 911 calls to an urban EMS from March 1-July 31, 2020 that had a documented positive screen for COVID-19 and/or had a positive COVID-19 test. The dispatch screen solicited information regarding travel, sick contacts, and high-risk symptoms. We reviewed charts to determine dispatch-screening results, the outcome of patients' COVID-19 testing, and documentation of crew fidelity to PPE guidelines. RESULTS: The sample size was 263. The rate of positive COVID-19 tests for all-comers in the state of Massachusetts was 2.0%. The dispatch screen had a sensitivity of 74.9% (confidence interval [CI], 69.21-80.03) and a specificity of 67.7% (CI, 66.91-68.50). The positive predictive value was 4.5% (CI, 4.17-4.80), and the negative predictive value was 99.3% (CI, 99.09-99.40). The most common symptom that triggered a positive screen was shortness of breath (51.5% of calls). The most common high-risk population identified was skilled nursing facility patients (19.5%), but most positive tests did not belong to a high-risk population (58.1%). The EMS personnel were documented as wearing full PPE for the patient in 55.7% of encounters, not wearing PPE in 8.0% of encounters, and not documented in 27.9% of encounters. CONCLUSION: This dispatch-screening questionnaire has a high negative predictive value but moderate sensitivity and therefore should be used with some caution to guide EMS crews in their PPE usage. Clinical judgment is still essential and may supersede screening status.

INTRODUCTION: There is concern about the initiation of opiates in healthcare settings due to the risk of future misuse. Although opiate medications have historically been at the core of prehospital pain management, several states are introducing non-opiate alternatives to prehospital care. Prior studies suggest that non-opiate analgesics are non-inferior to opiates for many acute complaints, yet there is little literature describing practice patterns of pain management in prehospital care. Our goal was to describe the practice patterns and attitudes of paramedics toward pain management after the introduction of non-opiates to a statewide protocol. METHODS: This study was two-armed. The first arm employed a pre/post retrospective chart review model examining medication administrations reported to the Massachusetts Ambulance Trip Information System between January 1, 2017-December 31, 2018. We abstracted instances of opiate and non-opiate utilizations along with patients' clinical course. The second arm consisted of a survey administered to paramedics one year after implementation of non-opiates in the state protocol, which used binary questions and Likert scales to describe beliefs pertaining to prehospital analgesia. RESULTS: Pain medications were administered in 1.6% of emergency medical services incidents in 2017 and 1.7% of incidents in 2018. The rate of opiate analgesic use was reduced by 9.4% in 2018 compared to 2017 (90.6% vs 100.0%). The absolute reduction in opiate use in 2018 was 3.6%. Women were less likely (odds ratio [OR] = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.89) and trauma patients were more likely to receive opiates (OR = 2.36, CI, 1.96-2.84). Mean transport times were longer in opiate administration incidents (36.97 vs 29.35 minutes, t = 17.34, p < 0.0001). We surveyed 100 paramedics (mean age 41.98, 84% male). Compositely, 85% of paramedics planned to use non-opiates and 35% reported having done so. Participants planning to use non-opiates were younger and less experienced. Participants indicated that concern about adverse effects, efficacy, and time to effect impacted their practice patterns. CONCLUSION: The introduction of non-opiate pain medication to state protocols led to reduced opiate administration. Men and trauma patients were more likely to receive opiates. Paramedics reported enthusiasm for non-opiate medications. Beliefs about non-opioid analgesics pertaining to adverse effects, onset time, and efficacy may influence their utilization.

INTRODUCTION: Although emergency medical services (EMS) standing-order protocols provide more efficient and accurate on-scene management by paramedics, online medical direction (OLMD) has not been eliminated from practice. In this modern era of OLMD, no studies exist to describe the prevalence of reasons for contacting OLMD. OBJECTIVES: The primary goal of this study was to describe the quantity of and reasons for calls for medical direction. We also sought to determine time diverted from emergency physicians due to OLMD. Finally, we hoped to identify any areas for potential improvement or additional training opportunities for EMS providers. METHODS: This was a descriptive study with retrospective data analysis of recorded OLMD calls from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016. Data were extracted by research personnel listening to audio recordings and were entered into a database for descriptive analysis. We abstracted the date and length of call, patient demographic information (age and gender), category of call (trauma, medical, cardiac, or obstetrics), reason for call, and origin of call (prehospital, interhospital, nursing home, or discharge). RESULTS: The total number of recordings analyzed was 519. Calls were divided into four categories pertaining to their nature: 353 (68.5%) medical; 70 (13.6%) trauma; 83 (16.1%) cardiac; and 9 (8%) were obstetrics related. Repeat calls regarding the same patient encounter comprised 48 (9.4%) of the calls. Patient refusal of transport was the most common reason for a call medical direction (32.3% of calls). The total time for medical direction calls for the year was 26.6 hours. The maximum number of calls in a single day was seven, with a mean of 2.04 calls per day (standard deviation [SD] +/- 1.18). The mean call length was 3.06 minutes (SD +/- 2.51). CONCLUSION: Our analysis shows that the use of OLMD frequently involves complex decision-making such as determination of the medical decision-making capacity of patients to refuse treatment and transport, and evaluation of the appropriate level of care for interfacility transfers. Further investigation into the effect of EMS physician-driven medical direction on both the quality and time required for OLMD could allow for better identification of areas of potential improvement and training.