Aim The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted Emergency Medical Services (EMS) operations throughout the country. Some studies described variation in total volume of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) during the pandemic. We aimed to describe the changes in volume and characteristics of OHCA patients and resuscitations in one urban EMS system. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all recorded atraumatic OHCA in Marion County, Indiana, from January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019 and from January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020. We described patient, arrest, EMS response, and survival characteristics. We performed paired and unpaired t -tests to evaluate the changes in those characteristics during COVID-19 as compared to the prior year. Data were matched by month to control for seasonal variation. Results The total number of arrests increased from 884 in 2019 to 1034 in 2020 ( p = 0.016). Comparing 2019 to 2020, there was little difference in age [median 62 (IQR 59–73) and 60 (IQR 47–72), p = 0.086], gender (38.5% and 39.8% female, p = 0.7466, witness to arrest (44.3% and 39.6%, p = 0.092), bystander AED use (10.1% and 11.4% p = 0.379), bystander CPR (48.7% and 51.4%, p = 0.242). Patients with a shockable initial rhythm (19.2% and 15.4%, p = 0.044) both decreased in 2020, and response time increased by 18 s [6.0 min (IQR 4.5–7.7) and 6.3 min (IQR 4.7–8.0), p = 0.008]. 47.7% and 54.8% ( p = 0.001) of OHCA patients died in the field, 19.7% and 19.3% ( p = 0.809) died in the Emergency Department, 21.8% and 18.5% ( p = 0.044) died in the hospital, 10.8% and 7.4% ( p = 0.012) were discharged from the hospital, and 9.3% and 5.9% ( p = 0.005) were discharged with Cerebral Performance Category score ≤ 2. Conclusion Total OHCA increased during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared with the prior year. Although patient characteristics were similar, initial shockable rhythm, and proportion of patients who died in the hospital decreased during the pandemic. Further investigation will explore etiologies of those findings.

No abstract

Background: Community paramedicine (CP) leverages trained emergency medical services personnel outside of emergency response as an innovative model of health care delivery. Often used to bridge local gaps in healthcare delivery, the CP model has existed for decades. Recently, the number of programs has increased. However, the level of robust data to support this model is less well known.

Introduction:The boarding of admitted patients in the emergency department (ED) is a major cause of crowding and access block. One solution is boarding admitted patients in inpatient ward (W) hallways. This study queried and compared ED and W nurses’ opinions toward ED and W boarding. It also assessed their preferred boarding location if they were patients.Methods:A survey administered to a convenience sample of ED and W nurses was performed in a 631-bed academic medical center (30,000 admissions/year) with a 68-bed ED (70,000 visits/ year). We identified nurses as ED or W, and if W, whether they had previously worked in the ED. The nurses were asked if there were any circumstances where admitted patients should be boarded in ED or W hallways. They were also asked their preferred location if they were admitted as a patient. Six clinical scenarios were then presented, and the nurses’ opinions on boarding based on each scenario were queried.Results:Ninety nurses completed the survey, with a response rate of 60%; 35 (39%) were current ED nurses (cED), 40 (44%) had previously worked in the ED (pED). For all nurses surveyed 46 (52%) believed admitted patients should board in the ED. Overall, 52 (58%) were opposed to W boarding, with 20% of cED versus 83% of current W (cW) nurses (P < 0.0001), and 28% of pED versus 85% of nurses never having worked in the ED (nED) were opposed (P < 0.001). If admitted as patients themselves, 43 (54%) of all nurses preferred W boarding, with 82% of cED versus 33% of cW nurses (P < 0.0001) and 74% of pED versus 34% nED nurses (P = 0.0007). The most commonly cited reasons for opposition to hallway boarding were lack of monitoring and patient privacy. For the 6 clinical scenarios, significant differences in opinion regarding W boarding existed in all but 2 cases: a patient with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease but requiring oxygen, and an intubated, unstable sepsis patient.Conclusion:Inpatient nurses and those who have never worked in the ED are more opposed to inpatient boarding than ED nurses and nurses who have worked previously in the ED. Primary nursing concerns about boarding are lack of monitoring and privacy in hallway beds. Nurses admitted as patients seemed to prefer not being boarded where they work. ED and inpatient nurses seemed to agree that unstable or potentially unstable patients should remain in the ED but disagreed on where more stable patients should board.

In many systems, patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes experience delays in transport to thrombectomy-capable centers. This pilot study examined use of a novel emergency medical services (EMS) protocol to expedite transfer of patients with LVOs to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC). From October 1, 2020 to February 22, 2021, Indianapolis EMS piloted a protocol, in which paramedics, after transporting a patient with a possible stroke remained at the patient’s bedside until released by the emergency department or neurology physician. In patients with possible LVO, EMS providers remained at the bedside until the clinical assessment and CT angiography (CTA) were complete. If indicated, the paramedics at bedside transferred the patient, via the same ambulance, to a nearby thrombectomy-capable CSC with which an automatic transfer agreement had been arranged. This five-month mixed methods study included case-control assessment of use of the protocol, number of transfers, safety during transport, and time saved in transfer compared to emergent transfers via conventional interfacility transfer agencies. In qualitative analysis EMS providers, and ED physicians and neurologists at both sending and receiving institutions, completed e-mail surveys on the process, and offered suggestions for process improvement. Responses were coded with an inductive content analysis approach. The protocol was used 42 times during the study period; four patients were found to have LVOs and were transferred to the CSC. There were no adverse events. Median time from decision-to-transfer to arrival at the CSC was 27.5 minutes (IQR 24.5–29.0), compared to 314.5 minutes (IQR 204.0–459.3) for acute non-stroke transfers during the same period. Major themes of provider impressions included: incomplete awareness of the protocol, smooth process, challenges when a stroke alert was activated after EMS left the hospital, greater involvement of EMS in patient care, and comments on communication and efficiency. This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility, safety, and efficiency of a novel approach to expedite endovascular therapy for patients with LVOs.