No abstract

Introduction:In recent years, several authors have begun to address the medical and legal risks associated with patients refusing or being refused transport by emergency medical services (EMS) systems. However, data regarding patient outcomes still are lacking.Purpose:The purpose of this study was to determine: 1) why patients are not transported; and 2) the subsequent outcome of these patients.Setting:A busy, suburban, volunteer EMS service with indirect medical control, but no guidelines for non-transport of patients.Methods:A retrospective review of the records of 158 consecutive EMS incidents in which an ambulance was called, but the patient was not transported. Follow-up was attempted by telephone contact with the patient and/or family.Results:Telephone follow-up was established successfully for 93 cases (59%). Of the 93 patients, 60 (64.5%) subsequently sought care from a physician, 15 of whom (25%) later were admitted. The mean hospital stay was 6.6±7.9 days (median=3 days) with a range of 1–30 days. Two were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) and two others died. Of the 93 study cases, 43 (46%) involved situations in which the patient refused transport. Paramedics declined transport or mutually agreed not to transport in 50 cases (54%). This latter category accounted for 11 (73%) of the 15 hospitalizations. Ten percent of patients (or their families) stated that they were dissatisfied with the non-transport decisions.Conclusions:Serious, even fatal outcomes were identified in the follow-up of patients not transported by EMS. Although a direct causal relationship was not established within the context of this study, situations in which EMS personnel either denied transport (or mutually agreed with the patient not to transport by ambulance) were twice as likely to result in hospitalization than were those cases in which the patients declined transportation against the advice of the EMS personnel.

Emergency medical services (EMS) providers must often manage violent or combative patients. The data regarding violence against EMS personnel are poor, but according to studies conducted thus far, between 0.8% and 5.0% of incidents to which EMS personnel respond involve violence or the threat of violence. Physical or chemical restraint is usually the only option available to emergency care providers to control violent patients. Physical restraint, however, can lead to sudden death in otherwise healthy patients, possibly as a result of positional asphyxia, severe acidosis, or a patient's excited delirium. Chemical restraint has traditionally consisted of either neuroleptics or benzodiazepines, but those drugs also have drawbacks. Haloperidol and droperidol, the neuroleptics most frequently used for restraint, can cause serious side effects such as extrapyramidal symptoms or QTc (QT interval corrected for heart rate) prolongation. The Food and Drug Administration recently issued a black box warning regarding the use of droperidol, because the QTc prolongation associated with the drug has led to fatal torsades de pointes in some patients. Benzodiazepines are also associated with adverse effects, such as sedation and respiratory depression, especially when the drugs are mixed with alcohol. The atypical antipsychotics, a new option that may be available soon, are less likely to cause such effects and therefore may be preferred over the neuroleptics. Liquid and injectable formulations of various atypical antipsychotics are currently in clinical trials. Because few options are currently available to EMS personnel for managing violent patients outside of the hospital, more research regarding violence against emergency care providers is necessary.