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.

The primary aim of our investigation was to describe the safety and feasibility of a protocol for prehospital recognition of sepsis with hypotension and septic shock, drawing of blood cultures, and administration of intravenous (IV) antibiotics in an urban EMS service, thereby adding to the limited U.S. literature available on this subject and supporting the development of a large-scale randomized control trial (RCT). Primary feasibility measures included the frequency of allergic reactions, culture contamination, and paramedic adherence to the protocol in the prehospital environment.

BACKGROUND: Agitated behaviors are frequently encountered in the prehospital setting and require emergent treatment to prevent harm to patients and prehospital personnel. Chemical sedation with ketamine works faster than traditional pharmacologic agents, though it has a higher incidence of adverse events, including intubation. Outcomes following varying initial doses of prehospital intramuscular (IM) ketamine use have been incompletely described. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether using a lower dose IM ketamine protocol for agitation is associated with more favorable outcomes. METHODS: This study was a pre-/post-intervention retrospective chart review of prehospital care reports (PCRs). Adult patients who received chemical sedation in the form of IM ketamine for agitated behaviors were included. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on the standard IM ketamine dose of 4mg/kg and the lower IM dose of 3mg/kg with the option for an additional 1mg/kg if required. Primary outcomes included intubation and hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included emergency department (ED) length of stay, additional chemical or physical restraints, assaults on prehospital or ED employees, and documented adverse events. RESULTS: The standard dose cohort consisted of 211 patients. The lower dose cohort consisted of 81 patients, 17 of whom received supplemental ketamine administration. Demographics did not significantly differ between the cohorts (mean age 35.14 versus 35.65 years; P = .484; and 67.8% versus 65.4% male; P = .89). Lower dose subjects were administered a lower ketamine dose (mean 3.24mg/kg) compared to the standard dose cohort (mean 3.51mg/kg). There was no statistically significant difference between the cohorts in intubation rate (14.2% versus 18.5%; P = .455), ED length of stay (14.31 versus 14.88 hours; P = .118), need for additional restraint and sedation (P = .787), or admission rate (26.1% versus 25.9%; P = .677). In the lower dose cohort, 41.2% (7/17) of patients who received supplemental ketamine doses were intubated, a higher rate than the patients in this cohort who did not receive supplemental ketamine (8/64, 12.5%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Access to effective, fast-acting chemical sedation is paramount for prehospital providers. No significant outcomes differences existed when a lower dose IM ketamine protocol was implemented for prehospital chemical sedation. Patients who received a second dose of ketamine had a significant increase in intubation rate. A lower dose protocol may be considered for an agitation protocol to limit the amount of medication administered to a population of high-risk patients.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to describe complications and outcomes of prehospital ketamine use for agitation as compared to other methods of physical or chemical restraint such as haloperidol plus benzodiazepine or physical restraint only. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective review of patient encounters in which restraint was administered in the prehospital setting. At the beginning of our study window, only physical restraint was available to paramedics managing agitated patients but subsequently, haloperidol and benzodiazepines were introduced, followed by ketamine 2 years later. By comparing patients before and after each transition, we divided subjects into 3 cohorts based on restraint type: physical restraint, haloperidol plus benzodiazepine, and ketamine. Demographic data were collected, and outcome measures included intubation rate, need for additional physical or chemical restraint, emergency department (ED) length of stay, need for hospital admission, and employee injury. RESULTS: Of 214 subjects included in the study, 95 patients were administered ketamine, 68 received haloperidol and benzodiazepine, and 51 were physically restrained. Eleven of the patients (11.6%) who received ketamine were intubated. Compared to patients who received haloperidol plus benzodiazepine, patients who received ketamine were more likely to be intubated (odds ratio [OR] = 8.77, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-69.68) and were more likely to require additional chemical restraint when compared to haloperidol/benzodiazepine or physical restraint only (OR =2.94, 95% CI, 1.49-5.80, and OR =2.15, 95% CI, 1.07-4.31, respectively). There were no differences between the 2 chemical sedation groups in terms of ED length of stay or hospital admission rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a lower intubation rate in patients administered ketamine than prior literature in association with a lower weight-based dosing regimen. Ketamine use was correlated with a higher frequency of intubation and a greater need for additional chemical restraint when compared with other restraint modalities, though exogenous factors such as provider preference may have impacted this result. There was no difference in ED length of stay or admission rate between the ketamine and haloperidol plus benzodiazepine groups. Further prospective study is needed to determine whether there is a subset of patients for whom ketamine would be beneficial compared to other therapies.