Introduction:Patients who require end of life (EoL)/palliative care occasionally need assistance from paramedics. This review evaluated the evidence for paramedic-delivered EoL/palliative care interventions. Methods: The Canadian Prehospital Evidence-based Practice (PEP) Project methodology was used. A PubMed search was conducted, using Medical Subject headings and title/abstract key words. Titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance. Studies were not required to be EMS based but must have focused on interventions available to EMS personnel. Included full text studies were scored by trained primary appraisers on a three-point Level of Evidence (LOE) scale (high = 1, moderate = 2 and low = 3) and three-point Direction of Evidence (DOE) scale (supportive, neutral, or opposing). Studies were categorized by clinical condition (n = 5) and by intervention (n = 25), and plotted on 3×3 (DOE × LOE) tables. The study primary outcome and setting were determined. Results: The search returned 3255 articles; 86 were selected for abstract review; with 30 full text articles ultimately included. Intervention recommendations were: LOE 1-supportive (n = 3, 12%), 2-supportive (n = 2, 8%), 3-supportive (n = 2, 8%), 1-neutral (n = 2, 8%), 2-neutral (n = 2, 8%), 3-neutral (n = 4, 16%). No primary studies were identified for 10 (40%) interventions. Conditions with 1-supportive studies were: 'breathlessness' and 'analgesia'. 'Secretions' condition had no relevant evidence. Interventions with 1-supportive evidence were: Haldol for agitation (n = 1), fentanyl and morphine for analgesia (n = 3 and n = 1), narcotics for breathlessness (n = 1). No intervention had opposing evidence. Primary outcomes were more commonly related to symptom relief (n = 26, 87%), safety (n = 3, 10%), or tolerability (n = 1, 3%). Only one included study was conducted in the EMS setting. Conclusion: Evidence for interventions used by paramedics in the treatment of patients requiring EoL/palliative care was identified, as were evidence gaps. Little research was conducted in the EMS setting, and most interventions had few studies. These PEP findings highlight topics requiring high quality EMS research specific to EoL/palliative care to inform this growing aspect of paramedic practice. Keywords: palliative care, emergency medical services (EMS), end-of-life care P056The state of the evidence for emergency medical services (EMS) care of blunt spinal trauma: an analysis of appraised research from the Canadian Prehospital Evidence-based Practice (PEP) Project A. Carter, MD, J. Greene, BSc, J. Cook, MD, J. Goldstein, PhD, J. Jensen, MSc; Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS Introduction: The Canadian Prehospital Evidence-based Practice (PEP) project is an online, freely accessible, continuously updated EMS evidence repository. The summary of research evidence for EMS interventions used to care for blunt spinal trauma is described. Methods: PubMed was systematically searched. One author reviewed titles and abstracts for relevance. Included studies were scored by trained ...

Introduction:Patients who require end of life (EoL)/palliative care occasionally need assistance from paramedics. This review evaluated the evidence for paramedic-delivered EoL/palliative care interventions. Methods: The Canadian Prehospital Evidence-based Practice (PEP) Project methodology was used. A PubMed search was conducted, using Medical Subject headings and title/abstract key words. Titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance. Studies were not required to be EMS based but must have focused on interventions available to EMS personnel. Included full text studies were scored by trained primary appraisers on a three-point Level of Evidence (LOE) scale (high = 1, moderate = 2 and low = 3) and three-point Direction of Evidence (DOE) scale (supportive, neutral, or opposing). Studies were categorized by clinical condition (n = 5) and by intervention (n = 25), and plotted on 3×3 (DOE × LOE) tables. The study primary outcome and setting were determined. Results: The search returned 3255 articles; 86 were selected for abstract review; with 30 full text articles ultimately included. Intervention recommendations were: LOE 1-supportive (n = 3, 12%), 2-supportive (n = 2, 8%), 3-supportive (n = 2, 8%), 1-neutral (n = 2, 8%), 2-neutral (n = 2, 8%), 3-neutral (n = 4, 16%). No primary studies were identified for 10 (40%) interventions. Conditions with 1-supportive studies were: 'breathlessness' and 'analgesia'. 'Secretions' condition had no relevant evidence. Interventions with 1-supportive evidence were: Haldol for agitation (n = 1), fentanyl and morphine for analgesia (n = 3 and n = 1), narcotics for breathlessness (n = 1). No intervention had opposing evidence. Primary outcomes were more commonly related to symptom relief (n = 26, 87%), safety (n = 3, 10%), or tolerability (n = 1, 3%). Only one included study was conducted in the EMS setting. Conclusion: Evidence for interventions used by paramedics in the treatment of patients requiring EoL/palliative care was identified, as were evidence gaps. Little research was conducted in the EMS setting, and most interventions had few studies. These PEP findings highlight topics requiring high quality EMS research specific to EoL/palliative care to inform this growing aspect of paramedic practice. Keywords: palliative care, emergency medical services (EMS), end-of-life care P056The state of the evidence for emergency medical services (EMS) care of blunt spinal trauma: an analysis of appraised research from the Canadian Prehospital Evidence-based Practice (PEP) Project A. Carter, MD, J. Greene, BSc, J. Cook, MD, J. Goldstein, PhD, J. Jensen, MSc; Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS Introduction: The Canadian Prehospital Evidence-based Practice (PEP) project is an online, freely accessible, continuously updated EMS evidence repository. The summary of research evidence for EMS interventions used to care for blunt spinal trauma is described. Methods: PubMed was systematically searched. One author reviewed titles and abstracts for relevance. Included studies were scored by trained ...

methods, and creation of a clinical pathway may help address the rate of over-transfusion.

Introduction: An undefined yet potentially significant risk for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems are patients who access 911 with an ambulance response who are not transported to hospital (non-transport). Our objective was to determine the prevalence and associated characteristics of non-transport and potentially clinically adverse non-transports in Nova Scotia. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of pooled cross-sectional, population-based administrative data in a provincial EMS system that provides care to 920,000 residents. Electronic patient care record (ePCR) data was retrospectively analyzed for one calendar year (2014). The dependent variables were non-transport status and potentially adverse non-transport status. Potentially adverse non-transports were defined as a repeat call within 48 hours for a related complaint with the outcome of transport or death. Independent variables include patient characteristics, (age, sex, vitals and paramedic clinical impression), operational (crew type and response code) and environmental (time, date, and location). For both objectives we determined the prevalence of the outcome of interest, and associated characteristics. Results: There were 74,471 EMS responses between January to December 2014, 18.9% (n=14, 094/74,471) resulted in a non-transport. The characteristics most associated with non-transport are: age, paramedic clinical impressions, number of co-morbidities, response mode, and incident location type. As age decreased, the likelihood of non-transport increased. Younger non-transported patients (0-15 years old) (OR 2.2, 99.9% CI 1.9-2.5) are more likely to have non-transport. Relative to other paramedic clinical impressions, glycemic issues (OR 4.8; 99.9% CI 3.9-5.7) and wellness checks (OR 6.5; 99.9% CI 5.7-7.3) are more likely to have a non-transport. Non-transports are more likely at a detention facility (OR 4.1; 99.9% CI 3.2-5.1) or a roadway (OR 2.4; 99.9% CI 2.1-2.8). 5.6% (n=798/14094) of non-transport patients were classified as a potentially adverse non-transport. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that a significant portion of patients (18.9%) had a non-transport outcome, but only a small percentage (5.6%) were considered potentially adverse. The results of this study provide timely information to policy makers and healthcare practitioners on the scope of this issue, and suggest potential directions for future study and clinical decision making.

Introduction: Collaborative Emergency Centres (CECs) provide access to care in rural communities. After hours, registered nurses (RNs) and paramedics work together in the ED with telephone support by an emergency medical services (EMS) physician. The safety of such a model is unknown. Relapse visits are often used as a proxy measure for safety in emergency medicine. The primary outcome of this study is to measure unscheduled relapses to emergency care. Methods: The electronic patient care record (ePCR) database was queried for all patients who visited two CECs from April 1, 2012 to April 1, 2013. Abstracted data included demographics, time, acuity score, clinical impression, chief complaint, and disposition. Records were searched for each discharged CEC patient to identify unscheduled relapses to emergency care, defined as presenting back to EMS, CEC, or any other ED within the Health Authority within 48 hours of CEC discharge. Results: There were 894 CEC visits, of which 66 were excluded due to missing data. The dispositions from CEC were: 131/828 (15.8%) transferred to regional ED; 264/828 (31.9%) discharged home; 488/828 (58.9%) discharged with follow up visit booked; and 11/82 (1.2%) left the CEC without being seen. There was 37/828 (4.5%) visits which relapsed back to emergency care, all of whom were discharged from CEC or left without being seen: 3/828 (0.4%) relapsed back to EMS (two taken to regional ED and one to CEC); 16/828 (1.9%) relapsed to regional ED (by walking-in); and 18/828 (2.2%) had a relapse to the CEC (walk-in). 516/828 (62.3%) CEC visits were resolved in a single visit. Conclusion: This study was based on only two of the 7 operating CECs due to accessing paper-based charts for multiple health regions. We also acknowledge the limitations of using relapse as a proxy for safety, and that low volumes and acuity will make detection of adverse events challenging. Albeit a proxy measure, the rate of patients who relapse to emergency care was under 5% in this case series of two CECs. Most patients had their concern resolved in a single visit to a CEC. Further research is underway to determine the effectiveness, optimal utilization and safety of this collaborative model of rural emergency care.