Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
This journal utilises an Online Peer Review Service (OPRS) for submissions. By clicking "Continue" you will be taken to our partner site
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pdm.
Please be aware that your Cambridge account is not valid for this OPRS and registration is required. We strongly advise you to read all "Author instructions" in the "Journal information" area prior to submitting.
To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In the United States, farming has become one of the most dangerous occupations. There are unique challenges for the providers of prehospital care to victims of agricultural trauma. The machinery and the work environment associated with agricultural trauma are different from those encountered in other occupations. The unique features of the machinery and risks are discussed. In addition, solutions unique to the problems of agricultural prehospital care are discussed. Effective care of the victims of agricultural trauma has a potential to reduce morbidity.
The purpose of this study was to determine the complication rates associated with the use of the endotracheal tube (ET) a the use of the esophageal obturator airway/esophageal gastric tube airway (EOA/EGT during the treatment of patients with prehospital cardiac arrest.
Methods:
A descriptive, quasi-experimental study of 509 consecutive adults, cardiac arrest patients was conducted. Patients were examined prospectively for airway intervention type and complications. Some patients were examined at their final destinations (field, morgue, funeral home), while other patients were examined by EMS providers in the field when airway adjuncts were switched. Also, airways were evaluated for complications by emergency physicians at destination emergency departments.
Results:
The airway in use at the time of examination was the esophageal obturator airway (EOA) or esophageal gas lube airway (EGTA) in 208 patients (40.1%); the ET (endotracheal tube) in 232 patients (45.6%); and an oral or nasopha ryngeal airway in 47 patients (9.2%). Twenty-two patients (4.3%) had both an EOA/EGTA and an ET tube in place at the time of the examination. The survival rates were similar between the EOA/EGTA and the ET groups (28% and 32%, respectively). The complication rates overall also were similar, but the serious or potentially lethal complication rate was 3.3 times more common with the use of the EOA/EGTA than with the ET tube (8.7% versus 2.6%, respectively).
Conclusions:
The complication rate for the EOA/EGTA is unacceptably high, and careful thought must be given to its continued use. Serious questions also arise concerning the complication rates associated with the use of the ET: is the complication rate of 2.5% acceptable or should other airway alternative be considered for use in prehospital care?
The concept of the necessity of a good quality assurance (QA) plan for emergency medical services (EMS) is well-accepted; guidelines as how best to achieve this and how current systems operate have not been defined. The purpose of this study was to survey EMS systems to discover current methods used to perform medical control and QA and to examine whether the existence of an emergency medicine residency affected these components.
Methods:
A survey was mailed in 1989 to the major teaching hospitals associated with all of the emergency medicine residency programs (n = 79) and all other hospitals with greater than 350 beds within the 50 largest United States metropolitan areas (n = 172). If no response was received, a second request was sent in 1990. The survey consisted of questions concerning four general EMS-QA categories: 1) general information; 2) prospective; 3) immediate; and 4) retrospective medical control.
Results:
Completed surveys were received from 78.5% of residency and 50% of non-residency programs. The majority had an emergency medicine physician as medical director (80.1% vs 61.5%, p = .03). While both residency and non-residency hospitals participated in initial public and prehospital personnel education, academic programs were more likely to be involved in continuing medical education (98.2% vs 82.3%, p = .009). On-line (direct) supervision was more likely to be provided by residency institutions (96.4% vs 81.0%, p = .017) which was provided by a physician in 88.3%. Trip sheet review was utilized by 62.0% of non-residency and 75.5% of residency programs responding, and utilized the paramedic coordinator (44.5% vs 46.1%) or medical director (35.7% vs 34.5 %) primarily.
Conclusion:
This survey characterizes some of the current methods utilized nationwide in EMS-QA programs. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of these various methods, and to develop a model program.