Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Utilization Criteria for Prehospital Ultrasound in a Canadian Critical Care Helicopter Emergency Medical Service: Determining Who Might Benefit

  • Domhnall O’Dochartaigh (a1) (a2), Matthew Douma (a3), Chris Alexiu (a4), Shell Ryan (a2) and Mark MacKenzie (a2) (a4) (a5)...
Abstract
Abstract Introduction

Prehospital ultrasound (PHUS) assessments by physicians and non-physicians are performed on medical and trauma patients with increasing frequency. Prehospital ultrasound has been shown to be of benefit by supporting interventions.

Problem

Which patients may benefit from PHUS has not been clearly identified.

Methods

A multi-variable logistic regression analysis was performed on a previously created retrospective dataset of five years of physician- and non-physician-performed ultrasound scans in a Canadian critical care Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS). For separate medical and trauma patient groups, the a-priori outcome assessed was patient characteristics associated with the outcome variable of “PHUS-supported intervention.”

Results

Both models were assessed (Likelihood Ratio, Score, and Wald) as a good fit. For medical patients, the characteristics of heart rate (HR) and shock index (SI) were found to be most significant for an intervention being supported by PHUS. An extremely low HR was found to be the most significant (OR=15.86 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-171.73]; P=.02). The higher the SI, the more likely that an intervention was supported by PHUS (SI 0.9 to<1.3: OR=9.15 [95% CI, 1.36-61.69]; P=.02; and SI 1.3+: OR=8.37 [95% CI, 0.69-101.66]; P=.09). For trauma patients, the characteristics of Prehospital Index (PHI) and SI were found to be most significant for PHUS support. The greatest effect was PHI, where increasing ORs were seen with increasing PHI (PHI 14-19: OR=13.36 [95% CI, 1.92-92.81]; P=.008; and PHI 20-24: OR=53.10 [95% CI, 4.83-583.86]; P=.001). Shock index was found to be similar, though, with lower impact and significance (SI 0.9 to<1.3: OR=9.11 [95% CI, 1.31-63.32]; P=.025; and SI 1.3+: OR=35.75 [95% CI, 2.51-509.81]; P=.008).

Conclusions:

In a critical care HEMS, markers of higher patient acuity in both medical and trauma patients were associated with occurrences when an intervention was supported by PHUS. Prospective study with in-hospital follow-up is required to confirm these hypothesis-generating results.

O’Dochartaigh D , Douma M , Alexiu C , Ryan S , MacKenzie M . Utilization Criteria for Prehospital Ultrasound in a Canadian Critical Care Helicopter Emergency Medical Service: Determining Who Might Benefit. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(5):536540.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Correspondence: Domhnall O’Dochartaigh, RN, MSc Room 1G1-55 Department of Emergency Medicine University of Alberta Hospital Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2B7 E-mail: domhnall.odochartaigh@ahs.ca; dodochartaigh@stars.ca
Footnotes
Hide All

Conflicts of interest: none

Footnotes
References
Hide All
1. O’DochartaighD, DoumaM. Prehospital ultrasound of the abdomen and thorax changes trauma patient management: a systematic review. Injury. 2015;46(11):2093-2102.
2. RudolphSS, SorensenMK, SvaneC, HesselfeldtR, SteinmetzJ. Effect of prehospital ultrasound on clinical outcomes of non-trauma patients - a systematic review. Resuscitation. 2014;85(1):21-30.
3. O’DochartaighD, DoumaM, MacKenzieM. Five-year retrospective review of physician- and non-physician-performed ultrasound in a Canadian critical care Helicopter Emergency Medical Service. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017;21(1):24-31.
4. TaylorJ, McLaughlinK, McRaeA, LangE, AntonA. Use of prehospital ultrasound in North America: a survey of Emergency Medical Services medical directors. BMC Emerg Med. 2014;14:6.
5. LanctôtJ, LanctôtMV, YanickB. EGLS: echo-guided life support: an algorithmic approach to undifferentiated shock. Crit Ultrasound J. 2011;3(3):123-129.
6. RadyM, SmithlineH, BlakeH, et al. A comparison of the shock index and conventional vital signs to identify acute, critical illness in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1994;24(4):685-690.
7. KoehlerJJ, BaerLJ, MalafaSA, MeindertsmaMS, NavitskasNR, HuizengaJE. Prehospital Index: a scoring system for field triage of trauma victims. Ann Emerg Med. 1986;15(2):178-182.
8. BreitkreutzR, PriceS, SteigerHV, et al. Focused echocardiographic evaluation in life support and peri-resuscitation of emergency patients: a prospective trial. Resuscitation. 2010;81(11):1527-1533.
9. BodnarD, RashfordS, HurnC, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients administered blood in the prehospital environment by a road based trauma response team. Emerg Med J. 2014;31(7):583-588.
10. SherrenPB, ReidC, HabigK, BurnsBJ. Algorithm for the resuscitation of traumatic cardiac arrest patients in a physician-staffed Helicopter Emergency Medical Service. Critical Care. 2013;17(2):308.
11. MrochukM, O’DochartaighD, ChangE. Rural trauma patients cannot wait: tranexamic acid administration by Helicopter Emergency Medical Services. Air Med J. 2015;34(1):37-39.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Prehospital and Disaster Medicine
  • ISSN: 1049-023X
  • EISSN: 1945-1938
  • URL: /core/journals/prehospital-and-disaster-medicine
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 53 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 374 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 3rd May 2017 - 24th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.