Background & purpose Pandemics such as COVID-19 can lead to severe shortages in healthcare resources, requiring the development of evidence-based Crisis Standard of Care (CSC) protocols. A protocol that limits the resuscitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) to events that are more likely to result in a positive outcome can lower hospital burdens and reduce emergency medical services resources and infection risk, although it would come at the cost of lives lost that could otherwise be saved. Our primary objective was to evaluate candidate OHCA CSC protocols involving known predictors of survival and identify the protocol that results in the smallest resource burden, as measured by the number of hospitalizations required per favorable OHCA outcome achieved. Our secondary objective was to describe the effects of the CSC protocols in terms of health outcomes and other measures of resource burden. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients in the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) database. Non-traumatic OHCA events from 2018 were included (n = 79,533). Candidate CSC protocols involving combinations of known predictors of good survival for OHCA were applied to the existing dataset to measure the resulting numbers of resuscitation attempts, transportations to hospital, hospital admissions, and favorable neurological outcomes. These outcomes were also assessed under Standard Care, defined as no CSC protocol applied to the data. Results The CSC protocol with the smallest number of hospitalizations per survivor with a favorable neurological outcome was that an OHCA resuscitation should only be attempted if the arrest was witnessed by emergency medical services or the first monitored rhythm was shockable (number of hospitalizations: 2.26 [95% CI: 2.21–2.31] vs. 3.46 [95% CI: 3.39–3.53] under Standard Care). This rule resulted in significant reductions in resource utilization (46.1% of hospitalizations and 29.2% of resuscitation attempts compared to Standard Care) while still preserving 70.5% of the favorable neurological outcomes under Standard Care. For every favorable neurological outcome lost under this CSC protocol, 6.3 hospital beds were made free that could be used to treat other patients. Conclusion In a pandemic scenario, pre-hospital CSC protocols that might not otherwise be considered have the potential to greatly improve overall survival, and this study provides an evidence-based approach towards selecting such a protocol. As this study was performed using data generated before the COVID-19 pandemic, future studies incorporating pandemic-era data will further help develop evidence-based CSC protocols.

Background:Over the past decade, Emergency Medical Service (EMS) systems decreased backboard use as they transition from spinal immobilization (SI) protocols to spinal motion restriction (SMR) protocols. Since this change, no study has examined its effect on the neurologic outcomes of patients with spine injuries.Objectives:The object of this study is to determine if a state-wide protocol change from an SI to an SMR protocol had an effect on the incidence of disabling spinal cord injuries.Methods:This was a retrospective review of patients in a single Level I trauma center before and after a change in spinal injury protocols. A two-step review of the record was used to classify spinal cord injuries as disabling or not disabling. A binary logistic regression was used to determine the effects of protocol, gender, age, level of injury, and mechanism of injury (MOI) on the incidence of significant disability from a spinal cord injury.Results:A total of 549 patients in the SI period and 623 patients in the SMR period were included in the analysis. In the logistic regression, the change from an SI protocol to an SMR protocol did not demonstrate a significant effect on the incidence of disabling spinal injuries (OR: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.44 - 1.36).Conclusion:This study did not demonstrate an increase in disabling spinal cord injuries after a shift from an SI protocol to an SMR protocol. This finding, in addition to existing literature, supports the introduction of SMR protocols and the decreased use of the backboard.

No abstract

were tabulated. For ES and SRM, value of 0.5 to 0.7 is considered moderate responsiveness, 0.8 to 1.0 is considered good, and values >1.0 is considered excellent responsiveness to change. The LURN SI-10 scores were compared to the OAB-q and UDI-6.RESULTS: Mean urinary urgency, UUI and frequency scores on LURN SI-10 decreased by 41%, 54% and 26% respectively after sacral neuromodulation (n[34). p-values of paired t-tests were <0.001, <0.001 and 0.051 respectively (see Table 1). The effect sizes (ES) for the urgency and UUI items were 2.05 and 1.13 respectively, indicating excellent responsiveness to change of the items to known effective treatments. The standardized response means (SRM) for the urgency and UUI items were 1.14 and 1.04 respectively, again indicating excellent responsiveness to change. There were strong correlations between LURN SI-10 scores and OAB-q and UDI-6 (r[0.66 and r[0.70 respectively, all p<0.01).CONCLUSIONS: The urinary urgency and urgency incontinence (UUI) items on LURN SI-10 questionnaire were responsive to change, and may be used to assess overactive bladder symptom change or improvement after sacral neuromodulation surgery.