By JACEP Open policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist.

IntroductionPennsylvania, among other states, includes surgical airway management, or cricothyrotomy, within the paramedic scope of practice. However, there is scant literature that evaluates paramedic perception of clinical competency in cricothyrotomy. The goal of this project is to assess clinical exposure, education and self-perceived competency of ground paramedics in cricothyrotomy.MethodsEighty-six paramedics employed by four ground emergency medical services agencies completed a 22-question written survey that assessed surgical airway attempts, training, skills verification, and perceptions about procedural competency. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate responses.ResultsOnly 20% (17/86, 95% CI [11–28%]) of paramedics had attempted cricothyrotomy, most (13/17 or 76%, 95% CI [53–90%]) of whom had greater than 10 years experience. Most subjects (63/86 or 73%, 95% CI [64–82%]) did not reply that they are well-trained to perform cricothyrotomy and less than half (34/86 or 40%, 95% CI [30–50%]) felt they could correctly perform cricothyrotomy on their first attempt. Among subjects with five or more years of experience, 39/70 (56%, 95% CI [44–68%]) reported 0–1 hours per year of practical cricothyrotomy training within the last five years. Half of the subjects who were able to recall (40/80, 50% 95% CI [39–61%]) reported having proficiency verification for cricothyrotomy within the past five years.ConclusionParamedics surveyed indicated that cricothyrotomy is rarely performed, even among those with years of experience. Many paramedics felt that their training in this area is inadequate and did not feel confident to perform the procedure. Further study to determine whether to modify paramedic scope of practice and/or to develop improved educational and testing methods is warranted.

Introduction:Climate change and overdevelopment increase the intensity and frequency of flash flooding, which may generate more swiftwater rescue (SWR) incidents. Rescue personnel may fail to properly risk stratify (triage) these victims due to limited medical and/or variable SWR training, or due to an adverse rescuer-to-victim ratio. Some victims may attempt to refuse medical evaluation due to lack of awareness of incident-related morbidity and/or comprehension of risk.Aim:To develop an SWR emergency medical triage tool.Methods:A cross-sectional literature search identified SWR-related medical conditions. A flow diagram reliant upon incident history, chief complaint, and observational exam rather than interpretation of vital signs was created to guide medical decision-making.Results:Every SWR victim should receive a medical screening exam focused on six clinical categories—drowning, hypothermia, hazmat exposure, physical trauma, psychological trauma and exacerbation of pre-existing disease. Drowning potential is identified by dyspnea, new cough or a history of (even brief) submersion. Shivering SWR victims and those with altered mental status but no shivering are assumed to be hypothermic. Any victim with open skin lesions/wounds who was immersed in floodwater and anyone who has swallowed floodwater is contaminated; these victims require decontamination and possible antibiotic therapy. SWR victims injured upon entering the water or from contact with either water-borne stationary or floating objects require trauma evaluation. Distraught victims and those who exhibit exacerbation of pre-existing organ-system disease also require ED evaluation.Discussion:Most SWR course curricula are oriented towards technical rescue; they do not address comprehensive medical decision-making. We present a rapid medical screening exam designed to determine which SWR victims require an ED evaluation. Such a triage tool will assist rescuers to simultaneously honor patient autonomy and avoid risky and uninformed refusal of medical aid. Simplified medical decision-making should enable the application of this tool worldwide.

Introduction-The quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is critical in increasing the probability of survival with a good neurologic outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. In an austere environment with a potentially salvageable patient, bystanders or first responders may need to provide chest compressions for a prolonged duration or during physically challenging transportation scenarios. Consequently, they may be at risk of fatigue or injury, and chest compression quality may deteriorate. The study sought to assess whether or not access to and utilization of a mechanical compression device (Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System) was feasible and not inferior to manual compressions while extricating and transporting a patient from a ski slope.Methods-Variable 3-person ski patrol teams responded to a simulated patient with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in a nonshockable rhythm. Using a mannequin and CPR quality monitor, performance during manual CPR was compared with that of a mechanical compression device. This is a prospective, crossover analysis of CPR quality during extrication from a ski slope. Across 8 total runs, chest compression fraction, which is the proportion of time without spontaneous circulation during which compressions occurred, and high-quality CPR, as measured by appropriate rate and depth, were compared between the 2 groups. Extrication times between the 2 groups were also measured.Results-There was no difference in compression fraction between the manual (91.4%; 95% CI [86.8-96.1]) and mechanical arms (92.8%; 95% CI [88.8-96.8]) (P=0.67). There was an increase in the time performing high-quality CPR in the mechanical group (58.5%; 95% ) vs that in the manual group (25.6%; 95% CI [13.5-37.8]) (P<0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in the extrication times between the 2 groups, 7.6 ± 0.5 min in the manual group vs 8.6 ± 0.4 min in the mechanical group (P=0.014).Conclusions-Mechanical CPR devices are noninferior for use in ski areas during initial resuscitation and transportation. Compared with manual CPR, mechanical CPR would likely improve the fraction of time performing high-quality CPR.