Medical resuscitations in rugged prehospital settings require emergency personnel to perform high-risk procedures in low-resource conditions. Just-in-Time Guidance (JITG) utilizing augmented reality (AR) guidance may be a solution. There is little literature on the utility of AR-mediated JITG tools for facilitating the performance of emergent field care.

The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of a novel AR-mediated JITG tool for emergency field procedures.

Emergency medical technician-basic (EMT-B) and paramedic cohorts were randomized to either video training (control) or JITG-AR guidance (intervention) groups for performing bag-valve-mask (BVM) ventilation, intraosseous (IO) line placement, and needle-decompression (Needle-d) in a medium-fidelity simulation environment. For the interventional condition, subjects used an AR technology platform to perform the tasks. The primary outcome was participant task performance; the secondary outcomes were participant-reported acceptability. Participant task score, task time, and acceptability ratings were reported descriptively and compared between the control and intervention groups using chi-square analysis for binary variables and unpaired t-testing for continuous variables.

Sixty participants were enrolled (mean age 34.8 years; 72% male). In the EMT-B cohort, there was no difference in average task performance score between the control and JITG groups for the BVM and IO tasks; however, the control group had higher performance scores for the Needle-d task (mean score difference 22%; P = .01). In the paramedic cohort, there was no difference in performance scores between the control and JITG group for the BVM and Needle-d tasks, but the control group had higher task scores for the IO task (mean score difference 23%; P = .01). For all task and participant types, the control group performed tasks more quickly than in the JITG group. There was no difference in participant usability or usefulness ratings between the JITG or control conditions for any of the tasks, although paramedics reported they were less likely to use the JITG equipment again (mean difference 1.96 rating points; P = .02).

This study demonstrated preliminary evidence that AR-mediated guidance for emergency medical procedures is feasible and acceptable. These observations, coupled with AR’s promise for real-time interaction and on-going technological advancements, suggest the potential for this modality in training and practice that justifies future investigation.

Our team of core and higher psychiatry trainees aimed to improve secondary mental health service detection of and response to gender-based violence (GBV) in South East London. We audited home treatment team (HTT), drug and alcohol (D&A) service and in-patient ward clinical records (n = 90) for female and non-binary patients. We implemented brief, cost-neutral staff engagement and education interventions at service, borough and trust levels before re-auditing (n = 86), completing a plan–do–study–act cycle.

Documented enquiry about exposure to GBV increased by 30% (HTT), 15% (ward) and 7% (D&A), post-intervention. We identified staff training needs and support for improving GBV care. Up to 56% of records identified psychiatric symptoms related to GBV exposure.

Moves to make mental healthcare more trauma-informed rely on services first being supportive environments for enquiry, disclosure and response to traumatic stressors. Our collaborative approach across clinical services increased GBV enquiry and documentation. The quality of response is more difficult to measure and requires concerted attention.

Lambeth Home Treatment Team (LHTT) provides short-term intensive community psychiatric care to a diverse South London population. The high turnover of patients requires a streamlined process to review and discuss their progress. We aimed to discuss patients in more frequent, targeted and shorter meetings, and to improve continuity of medical care using a ‘named doctor’ system. We assessed impact on length of stay with LHTT, on staff time as well as on both patient and staff satisfaction.

The system of once-weekly day-long discussions of entire caseload was replaced by twice-weekly discussions of new and concerning patients only. The system of medical reviews was changed from ad hoc to MDT-agreed allocation to a specific doctor for the duration of LHTT stay.

Data on duration of treatment and caseload size were taken from regular LHTT statistical reports. Staff and patient questionnaires assessed impact on satisfaction and time spent in review discussions.

Qualitative reports of staff experience revealed that the new system was felt to provide better continuity of care, better time efficiency (less time spent learning about new patients) and improved learning experiences for doctors in training. Downsides included lack of ‘automatic second opinion’ when a patient was reviewed by a different doctor, felt to be mitigated by more frequent discussions in MDT reviews when needed.

Patient feedback showed no significant change was noted in overall experience of LHTT, although patients were more likely to feel involved in their care (88% said ‘definitely’ compared to 68% before the change).

Time spent discussing patients in clinical review meetings reduced from an average of 38.5 to 28.5 person-hours per week.

Average caseload reduced from 57 to 42. However, duration of treatment increased from 18.8 days to 20.4 days.

The reduction in staff time in reviews suggests that the system had been appropriately streamlined. While caseload size reduced, duration of stay slightly increased, so the new system was not found to have had a significant impact on objective measures of patient care.

Staff feedback was generally favourable, highlighting continuity of care and time efficiency. Patient feedback, while good both before and after our change, suggested a greater feeling of involvement in their care, possibly due to clearer communication and discussion of plan from the start of LHTT care.