Scott M. Sasser

Guidelines for prehospital management of traumatic brain injury 2nd edition

The information contained in these Guidelines, which reflects the current state of knowledge at the time of completion of the literature search (July 2006), is intended to provide accurate and authoritative information about the subject matter covered. Because there will be future developments in scientific information and technology, it is anticipated that there will be periodic review and updating of these Guidelines. These Guidelines are distributed with the understanding that the Brain Trauma Foundation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the other organizations that have collaborated in the development of these Guidelines are not engaged in rendering professional medical services. If medical advice or assistance is required, the services of a competent physician should be sought. The recommendations contained in these Guidelines may not be appropriate for use in all circumstances. The decision to adopt a particular recommendation contained in these Guidelines must be based on the judgment of medical personnel, who take into consideration the facts and circumstances in each case, and on the available resources.

Mass casualty triage: an evaluation of the data and development of a proposed national guideline.

Mass casualty triage is a critical skill. Although many systems exist to guide providers in making triage decisions, there is little scientific evidence available to demonstrate that any of the available systems have been validated. Furthermore, in the United States there is little consistency from one jurisdiction to the next in the application of mass casualty triage methodology. There are no nationally agreed upon categories or color designations. This review reports on a consensus committee process used to evaluate and compare commonly used triage systems, and to develop a proposed national mass casualty triage guideline. The proposed guideline, entitled SALT (sort, assess, life-saving interventions, treatment and/or transport) triage, was developed based on the best available science and consensus opinion. It incorporates aspects from all of the existing triage systems to create a single overarching guide for unifying the mass casualty triage process across the United States.

Mass Casualty Triage: An Evaluation of the Science and Refinement of a National Guideline

Mass casualty triage is the process of prioritizing multiple victims when resources are not sufficient to treat everyone immediately. No national guideline for mass casualty triage exists in the United States. The lack of a national guideline has resulted in variability in triage processes, tags, and nomenclature. This variability has the potential to inject confusion and miscommunication into the disaster incident, particularly when multiple jurisdictions are involved. The Model Uniform Core Criteria for Mass Casualty Triage were developed to be a national guideline for mass casualty triage to ensure interoperability and standardization when responding to a mass casualty incident. The Core Criteria consist of 4 categories: general considerations, global sorting, lifesaving interventions, and individual assessment of triage category. The criteria within each of these categories were developed by a workgroup of experts representing national stakeholder organizations who used the best available science and, when necessary, consensus opinion. This article describes how the Model Uniform Core Criteria for Mass Casualty Triage were developed.

Blast Lung Injury

Current trends in global terrorism mandate that emergency medical services, emergency medicine andother acute care clinicians have a basic understanding of the physics of explosions, the types of injuries that can result from an explosion, andcurrent management for patients injured by explosions. High-order explosive detonations result in near instantaneous transformation of the explosive material into a highly pressurized gas, releasing energy at supersonic speeds. This results in the formation of a blast wave that travels out from the epicenter of the blast. Primary blast injuries are characterized by anatomical andphysiological changes from the force generated by the blast wave impacting the bodys surface, andaffect primarily gas-containing structures (lungs, gastrointestinal tract, ears). “Blast lung” is a clinical diagnosis andis characterized as respiratory difficulty andhypoxia without obvious external injury to the chest. It may be complicated by pneumothoraces andair emboli andmay be associated with multiple other injuries. Patients may present with a variety of symptoms, including dyspnea, chest pain, cough, andhemoptysis. Physical examination may reveal tachypnea, hypoxia, cyanosis, anddecreased breath sounds. Chest radiography, computerized tomography, andarterial blood gases may assist with diagnosis andmanagement; however, they should not delay diagnosis andemergency interventions in the patient exposed to a blast. High flow oxygen, airway management, tube thoracostomy in the setting of pneumothoraces, mechanical ventilation (when required) with permissive hypercapnia, andjudicious fluid administration are essential components in the management of blast lung injury.

Large Cost Savings Realized from the 2006 Field Triage Guideline: Reduction in Overtriage in U.S. Trauma Centers

Abstract Background. Ambulance transport of injured patients to the most appropriate medical care facility is an important decision. Trauma centers are designed and staffed to treat severely injured patients and are increasingly burdened by cases involving less-serious injury. Yet, a cost evaluation of the Field Triage national guideline has never been performed. Objectives. To examine the potential cost savings associated with overtriage for the 1999 and 2006 versions of the Field Triage Guideline. Methods. Data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Trauma Databank (NTDB) produced estimates of injury-related ambulatory transports and exposure to the Field Triage guideline. Case costs were approximated using a cost distribution curve of all cases found in the NTDB. A two-way sensitivity analysis was also used to determine the impact of data uncertainty on medical costs and the reduction in trauma center visits (12%) after implementation of the 2006 Field Triage guideline compared with the 1999 Field Triage guideline. Results. At a 40% overtriage rate, the average case cost was

Preventing death and disability through the timely provision of prehospital trauma care

16,434. The cost average of 44.2% reduction in case costs if patients were treated in a non–trauma center compared with a trauma center was found in the literature. Implementation of the 2006 Field Triage guideline produced a

Disparity in Naloxone Administration by Emergency Medical Service Providers and the Burden of Drug Overdose in US Rural Communities

7,264 cost savings per case, or an estimated annual national savings of

A consensus-based criterion standard for trauma center need.

568,000,000. Conclusion. Application of the 2006 Field Triage guideline helps emergency medical services personnel manage overtriage in trauma centers, which could result in a significant national cost savings.

A Review of Traumatic Brain Injury Trauma Center Visits Meeting Physiologic Criteria from the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Field Triage Guidelines

Injury remains a major cause of death and disability worldwide, and places an enormous burden on countries with limited resources. The optimal way to reduce life-threatening injuries is through primary prevention efforts that decrease the incidence and severity of injuries. When prevention fails, however, it is often possible to minimize the consequences of injury through effective prehospital and hospital-based trauma care. Unfortunately, much of the worlds population does not have access to prehospital trauma care, particularly in low income countries. In many parts of the world, few victims receive treatment at the scene and fewer still receive safe transport to the hospital in an ambulance. Transport, when available, is usually provided by relatives, untrained bystanders, commercial drivers (minibus, taxi or truck drivers), or by public safety officers (police and firefighters). Many high-income countries have developed technically complex and costly prehospital trauma care systems to provide care for acutely ill or injured patients. While these systems are impressive and they undoubtedly benefit some patients, there is little evidence that they are inherently superior to less costly systems that provide a more basic level of prehospital care. The start-up and maintenance costs of advanced life support systems place them out of the reach of all but a few countries, effectively eliminating them as a practical, sustainable option in many parts of the world. Expensive systems are not necessarily the best. With few exceptions, most advanced prehospital interventions have not been scientifically proven to be effective because the necessary randomized trials have not been conducted. In fact, most of the benefits of prehospital trauma care can be readily realized if basic, vital interventions are quickly and consistently applied, utilizing a countrys existing resources and health-care infrastructure. Considerable good may be accomplished by ensuring that victims receive life-sustaining care within a few minutes of injury. Even in countries with limited resources, many lives may be saved and disabilities prevented by teaching individuals what to do at the scene of an injury. The foundations of an effective prehospital system can be laid by recruiting carefully selected volunteers and non-medical professionals, and providing them with training as well as the basic supplies and equipment they need to provide effective prehospital care. Most severely injured patients who die in the first few hours after injury succumb to airway compromise, respiratory failure or uncontrolled haemorrhage. All of these conditions can be treated using basic first aid measures. The challenge, however, is to promote sustainable and affordable prehospital trauma care systems that provide services to everyone. To do this, each system must be defined by local needs and capacity and must be developed with due regard for local culture and health-care capacity. …

Hospitalized Traumatic Brain Injury: Low Trauma Center Utilization and High Interfacility Transfers among Older Adults

OBJECTIVES We determined the factors that affect naloxone (Narcan) administration in drug overdoses, including the certification level of emergency medical technicians (EMTs). METHODS In 2012, 42 states contributed all or a portion of their ambulatory data to the National Emergency Medical Services Information System. We used a logistic regression model to measure the association between naloxone administration and emergency medical services certification level, age, gender, geographic location, and patient primary symptom. RESULTS The odds of naloxone administration were much higher among EMT-intermediates than among EMT-basics (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 5.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.5, 6.5). Naloxone use was higher in suburban areas than in urban areas (AOR = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.3, 1.5), followed by rural areas (AOR = 1.23; 95% CI = 1.1, 1.3). Although the odds of naloxone administration were 23% higher in rural areas than in urban areas, the opioid drug overdose rate is 45% higher in rural communities. CONCLUSIONS Naloxone is less often administered by EMT-basics, who are more common in rural areas. In most states, the scope-of-practice model prohibits naloxone administration by basic EMTs. Reducing this barrier could help prevent drug overdose death.