Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T09:07:41.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emergency Medical Services Experience With Barb Removal After Taser Use By Law Enforcement: A Descriptive National Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2018

Mazen El Sayed ,
Chady El Tawil ,
Hani Tamim ,
Aurelie Mailhac  and
N. Clay Mann
Mazen El Sayed*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon Emergency Medical Services and Prehospital Care Program, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
Chady El Tawil
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
Hani Tamim
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
Aurelie Mailhac
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
N. Clay Mann
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah USA
*
Correspondence: Mazen J. El Sayed, MD, MPH, FACEP, FAEMS Associate Professor of Clinical Emergency Medicine Director of Emergency Medical Services & Prehospital Care Department of Emergency Medicine American University of Beirut Medical Center P.O.Box - 11-0236 Riad El Solh Beirut, Lebanon 1107 2020 E-mail: melsayed@aub.edu.lb
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Conducted electrical weapons (CEWs), including Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifles (TASERs), are increasingly used by law enforcement officers (LEOs) in the US and world-wide. Little is known about the experience of Emergency Medical Service (EMS) providers with these incidents.

Objectives

This study describes EMS encounters with documented TASER use and barb removal, characteristics of resulting injuries, and treatment provided.

Methods

This retrospective study used five combined, consecutive National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS; Salt Lake City, Utah USA) public-release datasets (2011-2015). All EMS activations with documented TASER barb removal were included. Descriptive analyses were carried out.

Results

The study included 648 EMS activations with documented TASER barb removal, yielding a prevalence rate of 4.55 per 1,000,000 EMS activations. Patients had a mean age of 35.9 years (SD=18.2). The majority were males (80.2%) and mainly white (71.3%). Included EMS activations were mostly in urban or suburban areas (78.3%). Over one-half received Advanced Life Support (ALS)-level of service (58.2%). The most common chief complaint reported by dispatch were burns (29.9%), followed by traumatic injury (16.1%). Patients had pain (45.6%) or wound (17.2%) as a primary symptom, with most having possible injury (77.8%). Reported causes of injury were mainly fire and flames (29.8%) or excessive heat (16.7%). The provider’s primary impressions were traumatic injury (66.3%) and behavioral/psychiatric disorder (16.8%). Only one cardiac arrest (0.2%) was reported. Over one-half of activations resulted in patient transports (56.3%), mainly to a hospital (91.2%). These encounters required routine EMS care (procedures and medications). An increase in the prevalence of EMS activations with documented TASER barb removal over the study period was not significant (P=.27).

Conclusion

At present, EMS activations with documented TASER barb removal are rare. Routine care by EMS is expected, and life-threatening emergencies are not common. All EMS providers should be familiar with local policies and procedures related to TASER use and barb removal.

El SayedM, El TawilC, TamimH, MailhacA, MannNC. Emergency Medical Services Experience With Barb Removal After Taser Use By Law Enforcement: A Descriptive National Study. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(1):38–45.

Keywords

conducted electrical weaponsEmergency Medical Serviceslaw enforcementNEMSISprehospitaltaser
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 38 - 45
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest/funding: This publication was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number DTNH22-09-H-00262 from the US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA; Washington, DC USA). The findings and conclusions of this publication do not necessarily represent the official views of NHTSA. The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content/writing of the paper.

References

1. Belen, E, Tipi, FF, Bayyiğit, A, Helvacı, AŞ. Acute inferior myocardial infarction after electrical weapon exposure: case report and review of the literature. Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars. 2015;43(2):178-181.Google Scholar
2. United States Government Accountability Office. TASER weapons: use of TASERs by selected law enforcement agencies. Washington, DC USA: The Office; 2005. www.gao.gov/new.items/d05464.pdf. Accessed November 23, 2017.Google Scholar
3. Han, JS, Chopra, A, Carr, D. Ophthalmic injuries from a TASER. CJEM. 2009;11(1):90-93.Google Scholar
4. Kroll, MW. Physiology and pathology of TASER electronic control devices. J Forensic Leg Med. 2009;16(4):173-177.Google Scholar
5. Ho, JD, Dawes, DM, Chang, RJ, Nelson, RS, Miner, JR. Physiologic effects of a new-generation conducted electrical weapon on human volunteers. J Emerg Med. 2014;46(3):428-435.Google Scholar
6. Bozeman, WP, Teacher, E, Winslow, JE. Trans-cardiac conducted electrical weapon (TASER) probe deployments: incidence and outcomes. J Emerg Med. 2012;43(6):970-975.Google Scholar
7. Bozeman, WP, Hauda, WE 2nd, Heck, JJ, Jr, Graham DD, Martin, BP, Winslow, JE. Safety and injury profile of conducted electrical weapons used by law enforcement officers against criminal suspects. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;53(4):480-489.Google Scholar
8. Jey, A, Hull, P, Kravchuk, V, Carillo, B, Martel, JB. Emergent diagnosis and management of TASER penetrating ocular injury. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34(8):1740.e3-5.Google Scholar
9. Rafailov, L, Temnogorod, J, Tsai, FF, Shinder, R. Impaled orbital TASER probe injury requiring primary enucleation. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;33(3S Suppl 1):S176-S177.Google Scholar
10. Sayegh, RR, Madsen, KA, Adler, JD, Johnson, MA, Mathews, MK. Response to TASER electronic control devices and eye injuries. Doc Ophthalmol. 2012;124(2):161-162.Google Scholar
11. Kroll, MW, Dawes, DM, Heegaard, WG. TASER electronic control devices and eye injuries. Doc Ophthalmol. 2012;124(2):157-159.Google Scholar
12. Winslow, JE, Bozeman, WP, Fortner, MC, Alson, RL. Thoracic compression fractures as a result of shock from a conducted energy weapon: a case report. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;50(5):584-586.Google Scholar
13. Dunet, B, Erbland, A, Abi-Chahla, ML, Tournier, C, Fabre, T. The TASERed finger: a new entity. Case report and review of literature. Chir Main. 2015;34(3):145-148.Google Scholar
14. Theisen, K, Slater, R, Hale, N. TASER-related testicular trauma. Urology. 2016;88:e5.Google Scholar
15. Al-Jarabah, M, Coulston, J, Hewin, D. Pharyngeal perforation secondary to electrical shock from a TASER gun. Emerg Med J. 2008;25(6):378.Google Scholar
16. Hinchey, PR, Subramaniam, G. Pneumothorax as a complication after TASER activation. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2009;13(4):532-535.Google Scholar
17. Kaloostian, P, Tran, H. Intracranial TASER dart penetration: literature review and surgical management. J Surg Case Rep. 2012;2012(6):10.Google Scholar
18. Rehman, TU, Yonas, H, Marinaro, J. Intracranial penetration of a TASER dart. Am J Emerg Med. 2007;25(6):733.e3-4.Google Scholar
19. Feeney, C, Vu, J, Ani, C. Acute agitated delirious state associated with TASER exposure. J Natl Med Assoc. 2010;102(12):1254-1257.Google Scholar
20. Bell, N, Moon, M, Dross, P. Cerebrovascular accident (CVA) in association with a TASER-induced electrical injury. Emerg Radiol. 2014;21(2):211-213.Google Scholar
21. Paninski, RJ, Marshall, ME, Link, MS. ICD oversensing caused by TASER. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013;24(1):101.Google Scholar
22. Multerer, S, Berkenbosch, JW, Das, B, Johnsrude, C. Atrial fibrillation after TASER exposure in a previously healthy adolescent. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2009;25(12):851–853.Google Scholar
23. Baldwin, DE, Nagarakanti, R, Hardy, SP, et al. Myocardial infarction after TASER exposure. J La State Med Soc. 2010;162(5):291-292, 294-295.Google Scholar
24. Naunheim, RS, Treaster, M, Aubin, C. Ventricular fibrillation in a man shot with a TASER. Emerg Med J. 2010;27(8):645-646.Google Scholar
25. Zipes, D. Sudden cardiac arrest and death following application of shocks from a TASER electronic control device. Circulation. 2012;125(20):2417-2422.Google Scholar
26. Mann, NC, Kane, L, Dai, M, Jacobson, K. Description of the 2012 NEMSIS public-release research dataset. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2015;19(2):232-240.Google Scholar
27. El Sayed, M, Tamim, H, Mann, NC. Description of medication administration by Emergency Medical Services during mass casualty incidents in the United States. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(2):141-149.Google Scholar
28. El Sayed, M, Tamim, H, Mann, NC. Description of procedures performed on patients by emergency medical services during mass casualty incidents in the United States. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33(8):1030-1036.Google Scholar
29. El Sayed, M, Tamim, H, Mailhac, A, Mann, NC. Trends and predictors of limb tourniquet use by civilian Emergency Medical Services in the United States. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017;21(1):54-62.Google Scholar
30. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Police Use of Force, TASERs, and Other Less-Lethal Weapons. May 2011. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/232215.pdf. Accessed November 24, 2017.Google Scholar
31. Denver Health Paramedic Division. Denver Paramedic Division Pre-Hospital Protocols. September 2016. https://www.denverhealthparamedics.org/images/documents/DHPDSeptember2016Protocols.pdf. Accessed November 24, 2017.Google Scholar
32. Haileyesus, T, Annest, JL, Mercy, JA. Non-fatal conductive energy device-related injuries treated in US emergency departments, 2005-2008. Inj Prev. 2011;17(2):127-130.Google Scholar
33. Kroll, MW, Ritter, MB2 Williams, HE. Fatal and non-fatal burn injuries with electrical weapons and explosive fumes. J Forensic Leg Med. 2017;50:6-11.Google Scholar
34. Swerdlow, CD, Fishbein, MC, Chaman, L, Lakkireddy, DR, Tchou, P. Presenting rhythm in sudden deaths temporally proximate to discharge of TASER conductedelectrical weapons. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16(8):726-739.Google Scholar
35. Stratton, SJ, Rogers, C, Brickett, K, Gruzinski, G. Factors associated with sudden death of individuals requiring restraint for excited delirium. Am J Emerg Med. 2001;19(3):187-191.Google Scholar