Cargando…

Immobilization in Emergency Medical Service – Are CSR and NEXUS-Criteria Considered? A Matched-Pairs Analysis Between Trauma Patients Treated by Onsite EMS Physicians and Patients Treated by Tele-EMS Physicians

BACKGROUND: The NEXUS-low-risk criteria (NEXUS) and Canadian C-spine rule (CSR) are clinical decision tools used for the prehospital spinal clearance in trauma patients, intending to prevent over- as well as under immobilization. Since 2014, a holistic telemedicine system is part of the emergency me...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hofstetter, Paula, Schröder, Hanna, Beckers, Stefan K, Borgs, Christina, Rossaint, Rolf, Felzen, Marc
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10178902/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37187612
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S386650
_version_ 1785040969871130624
author Hofstetter, Paula
Schröder, Hanna
Beckers, Stefan K
Borgs, Christina
Rossaint, Rolf
Felzen, Marc
author_facet Hofstetter, Paula
Schröder, Hanna
Beckers, Stefan K
Borgs, Christina
Rossaint, Rolf
Felzen, Marc
author_sort Hofstetter, Paula
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The NEXUS-low-risk criteria (NEXUS) and Canadian C-spine rule (CSR) are clinical decision tools used for the prehospital spinal clearance in trauma patients, intending to prevent over- as well as under immobilization. Since 2014, a holistic telemedicine system is part of the emergency medical service (EMS) in Aachen (Germany). This study aims to examine whether the decisions to immobilize or not by EMS- and tele-EMS physicians are based on NEXUS and the CSR, as well as the guideline adherence concerning the choice of immobilization device. METHODS: A single-site retrospective chart review was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were EMS physician and tele-EMS physician protocols with traumatic diagnoses. Matched pairs were formed, using age, sex and working diagnoses as matching criteria. The primary outcome parameters were the criteria documented as well as the immobilization device used. The evaluation of the decision to immobilize based on the criteria documented was defined as secondary outcome parameter. RESULTS: Of a total of 247 patients, 34% (n = 84) were immobilized in the EMS physician group and 32.79% (n = 81) in the tele-EMS physician group. In both groups, less than 7% NEXUS or CSR criteria were documented completely. The decision to immobilize or not was appropriately implemented in 127 (51%) in the EMS-physician and in 135 (54, 66%) in the tele-EMS physician group. Immobilization without indication was performed significantly more often by tele-EMS physicians (6.88% vs 2.02%). A significantly better guideline adherence was found in the tele-EMS physician group, preferring the vacuum mattress (25, 1% vs 8.9%) over the spineboard. CONCLUSION: It could be shown that NEXUS and CSR are not applied regularly, and if so, mostly inconsistently with incomplete documentation by both EMS- and tele-EMS physicians. Regarding the choice of the immobilization device a higher guideline adherence was shown among the tele-EMS physicians.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10178902
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101789022023-05-13 Immobilization in Emergency Medical Service – Are CSR and NEXUS-Criteria Considered? A Matched-Pairs Analysis Between Trauma Patients Treated by Onsite EMS Physicians and Patients Treated by Tele-EMS Physicians Hofstetter, Paula Schröder, Hanna Beckers, Stefan K Borgs, Christina Rossaint, Rolf Felzen, Marc Open Access Emerg Med Original Research BACKGROUND: The NEXUS-low-risk criteria (NEXUS) and Canadian C-spine rule (CSR) are clinical decision tools used for the prehospital spinal clearance in trauma patients, intending to prevent over- as well as under immobilization. Since 2014, a holistic telemedicine system is part of the emergency medical service (EMS) in Aachen (Germany). This study aims to examine whether the decisions to immobilize or not by EMS- and tele-EMS physicians are based on NEXUS and the CSR, as well as the guideline adherence concerning the choice of immobilization device. METHODS: A single-site retrospective chart review was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were EMS physician and tele-EMS physician protocols with traumatic diagnoses. Matched pairs were formed, using age, sex and working diagnoses as matching criteria. The primary outcome parameters were the criteria documented as well as the immobilization device used. The evaluation of the decision to immobilize based on the criteria documented was defined as secondary outcome parameter. RESULTS: Of a total of 247 patients, 34% (n = 84) were immobilized in the EMS physician group and 32.79% (n = 81) in the tele-EMS physician group. In both groups, less than 7% NEXUS or CSR criteria were documented completely. The decision to immobilize or not was appropriately implemented in 127 (51%) in the EMS-physician and in 135 (54, 66%) in the tele-EMS physician group. Immobilization without indication was performed significantly more often by tele-EMS physicians (6.88% vs 2.02%). A significantly better guideline adherence was found in the tele-EMS physician group, preferring the vacuum mattress (25, 1% vs 8.9%) over the spineboard. CONCLUSION: It could be shown that NEXUS and CSR are not applied regularly, and if so, mostly inconsistently with incomplete documentation by both EMS- and tele-EMS physicians. Regarding the choice of the immobilization device a higher guideline adherence was shown among the tele-EMS physicians. Dove 2023-05-08 /pmc/articles/PMC10178902/ /pubmed/37187612 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S386650 Text en © 2023 Hofstetter et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Hofstetter, Paula
Schröder, Hanna
Beckers, Stefan K
Borgs, Christina
Rossaint, Rolf
Felzen, Marc
Immobilization in Emergency Medical Service – Are CSR and NEXUS-Criteria Considered? A Matched-Pairs Analysis Between Trauma Patients Treated by Onsite EMS Physicians and Patients Treated by Tele-EMS Physicians
title Immobilization in Emergency Medical Service – Are CSR and NEXUS-Criteria Considered? A Matched-Pairs Analysis Between Trauma Patients Treated by Onsite EMS Physicians and Patients Treated by Tele-EMS Physicians
title_full Immobilization in Emergency Medical Service – Are CSR and NEXUS-Criteria Considered? A Matched-Pairs Analysis Between Trauma Patients Treated by Onsite EMS Physicians and Patients Treated by Tele-EMS Physicians
title_fullStr Immobilization in Emergency Medical Service – Are CSR and NEXUS-Criteria Considered? A Matched-Pairs Analysis Between Trauma Patients Treated by Onsite EMS Physicians and Patients Treated by Tele-EMS Physicians
title_full_unstemmed Immobilization in Emergency Medical Service – Are CSR and NEXUS-Criteria Considered? A Matched-Pairs Analysis Between Trauma Patients Treated by Onsite EMS Physicians and Patients Treated by Tele-EMS Physicians
title_short Immobilization in Emergency Medical Service – Are CSR and NEXUS-Criteria Considered? A Matched-Pairs Analysis Between Trauma Patients Treated by Onsite EMS Physicians and Patients Treated by Tele-EMS Physicians
title_sort immobilization in emergency medical service – are csr and nexus-criteria considered? a matched-pairs analysis between trauma patients treated by onsite ems physicians and patients treated by tele-ems physicians
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10178902/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37187612
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S386650
work_keys_str_mv AT hofstetterpaula immobilizationinemergencymedicalservicearecsrandnexuscriteriaconsideredamatchedpairsanalysisbetweentraumapatientstreatedbyonsiteemsphysiciansandpatientstreatedbyteleemsphysicians
AT schroderhanna immobilizationinemergencymedicalservicearecsrandnexuscriteriaconsideredamatchedpairsanalysisbetweentraumapatientstreatedbyonsiteemsphysiciansandpatientstreatedbyteleemsphysicians
AT beckersstefank immobilizationinemergencymedicalservicearecsrandnexuscriteriaconsideredamatchedpairsanalysisbetweentraumapatientstreatedbyonsiteemsphysiciansandpatientstreatedbyteleemsphysicians
AT borgschristina immobilizationinemergencymedicalservicearecsrandnexuscriteriaconsideredamatchedpairsanalysisbetweentraumapatientstreatedbyonsiteemsphysiciansandpatientstreatedbyteleemsphysicians
AT rossaintrolf immobilizationinemergencymedicalservicearecsrandnexuscriteriaconsideredamatchedpairsanalysisbetweentraumapatientstreatedbyonsiteemsphysiciansandpatientstreatedbyteleemsphysicians
AT felzenmarc immobilizationinemergencymedicalservicearecsrandnexuscriteriaconsideredamatchedpairsanalysisbetweentraumapatientstreatedbyonsiteemsphysiciansandpatientstreatedbyteleemsphysicians