In the United States, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have Good Samaritan Laws (GSLs). Designed to encourage bystanders to aid at the scene of an emergency, GSLs generally limit the risk of civil tort liability if the care is rendered in good faith. Nation-wide, a leading cause of preventable death is uncontrolled external hemorrhage. Public bleeding control initiatives aim to train the public to recognize life-threatening external bleeding, perform life-sustaining interventions (including direct pressure, tourniquet application, and wound packing), and to promote access to bleeding control equipment to ensure a rapid response from bystanders.

This study sought to identify the GSLs in each state and the District of Columbia to identify what type of responder is covered by the law (eg, all laypersons, only trained individuals, or only licensed health care providers) and if bleeding control is explicitly included or excluded in their Good Samaritan coverage.

Good Samaritan Laws providing civil liability qualified immunity were identified in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. One state, Oklahoma, specifically includes bleeding control in its GSLs. Six states – Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Missouri – have laws that define those covered under Good Samaritan immunity, generally limiting protection to individuals trained in a standard first aid or resuscitation course or health care clinicians. No state explicitly excludes bleeding control from their GSLs, and one state expressly includes it.

Nation-wide across the United States, most states have broad bystander coverage within GSLs for emergency medical conditions of all types, including bleeding emergencies, and no state explicitly excludes bleeding control interventions. Some states restrict coverage to those health care personnel or bystanders who have completed a specific training program. Opportunity exists for additional research into those states whose GSLs may not be inclusive of bleeding control interventions.

Administration of epinephrine has been associated with worse neurological outcomes for survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The publication of the 2018 PARAMEDIC-2 trial, a randomized and double-blind study of epinephrine in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, provides the strongest evidence to date that epinephrine increases return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) but not neurologically intact survival. This study aims to determine if Emergency Medical Services (EMS) cardiac arrest protocols have changed since the publication of PARAMEDIC-2.

States in the US utilizing mandatory or model state-wide EMS protocols, including Washington DC, were included in this study. The nontraumatic cardiac arrest protocol as of January 1, 2018 was compared to the protocol in effect on January 1, 2021 to determine if there was a change in the administration of epinephrine. Protocols were downloaded from the relevant state EMS website. If a protocol could not be obtained, the state medical director was contacted.

A 2021 state-wide protocol was found for 32/51 (62.7%) states. Data from 2018 were available for 21/51 (41.2%) states. Of the 11 states without data from 2018, all follow Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) guidelines in the 2021 protocol. Five (15.6%) of the states with a state-wide protocol made a change in the cardiac arrest protocols. Maximum cumulative epinephrine dose was limited to 4mg in Maryland and 3mg in Vermont. Rhode Island changed epinephrine in shockable rhythms to be administered after three cycles of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and an anti-arrhythmic. Rhode Island also added an epinephrine infusion as an option. No states removed epinephrine administration from their cardiac arrest protocol. Simple statistical analysis was performed with Microsoft Excel.

Several states have adjusted cardiac arrest protocols since 2018. The most frequent change was limiting the maximum cumulative dosage of epinephrine. One state changed timing of epinephrine dosing depending on the rhythm and also provided an option of an epinephrine infusion in place of bolus dosing. While the sample size is small, these changes may reflect the future direction of prehospital cardiac arrest protocols. Significant limitations apply, including the exclusion of local and regional protocols which are more capable of quickly adjusting to new research. Additionally, this study is only focused on EMS in the United States.

Ambulance patients who are unable to be quickly transferred to an emergency department (ED) bed represent a key contributing factor to ambulance offload delay (AOD). Emergency department crowding and associated AOD are exacerbated by multiple factors, including infectious disease outbreaks such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Initiatives to address AOD present an opportunity to streamline ambulance offload procedures while improving patient outcomes.

The goal of this study was to evaluate the initial outcomes and impact of a novel Emergency Medical Service (EMS)-based Hospital Liaison Program (HLP) on ambulance offload times (AOTs).

Ambulance offload times associated with EMS patients transported to a community hospital six months before and after HLP implementation were retrospectively analyzed using proportional significance tests, t-tests, and multiple regression analysis.

A proportional increase in incidents in the zero to <30 minutes time category after program implementation (+2.96%; P <.01) and a commensurate decrease in the proportion of incidents in the 30 to <60 minutes category (−2.65%; P <.01) were seen. The fully adjusted regression model showed AOT was 16.31% lower (P <.001) after HLP program implementation, holding all other variables constant.

The HLP is an innovative initiative that constitutes a novel pathway for EMS and hospital systems to synergistically enhance ambulance offload procedures. The greatest effect was demonstrated in patients exhibiting potentially life-threatening symptoms, with a reduction of approximately three minutes. While small, this outcome was a statistically significant decrease from the pre-intervention period. Ultimately, the HLP represents an additional strategy to complement existing approaches to mitigate AOD.

In the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, United States Emergency Medical Services (EMS) experienced a decrease in calls, and at the same time, an increase in out-of-hospital deaths. This finding led to a concern for the implications of potential delays in care for the obstetric population.

This study examines the impact of the pandemic on prehospital care amongst pregnant women.

A retrospective observational study was conducted comparing obstetric-related EMS activations in Maryland (USA) during the pandemic (March 10-July 20, 2020) to a pre-pandemic period (March 10-July 20, 2019). Comparative analysis was used to analyze the difference in frequency and acuity of calls between the two periods.

There were fewer obstetric-related EMS encounters during the pandemic compared to the year prior (daily average during the pandemic 12.5 [SD = 3.8] versus 14.6 [SD = 4.1] pre-pandemic; P <.001), although the percent of total female encounters remained unchanged (1.6% in 2020 versus 1.5% in 2019; P = .091). Key indicators of maternal status were not significantly different between the two periods. African-American women represented a disproportionately high percentage of obstetric-related activations (36.2% in 2019 and 34.8% in 2020).

In this state-wide analysis of EMS calls in Maryland early in the pandemic, no significant differences existed in the utilization of EMS by pregnant women. Prehospital EMS activations amongst pregnant women in Maryland only decreased slightly without an increase in acuity. Of note, over-representation by African-American women compared to population statistics raises concern for broader systemic differences in access to obstetric care.

Influenza vaccination remains the most effective primary prevention strategy for seasonal influenza. This research explores the percentage of emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians who received the seasonal flu vaccine in a given year, along with their reasons for vaccine acceptance and potential barriers.

A survey was distributed to all EMS clinicians in Virginia during the 2018-2019 influenza season. The primary outcome was vaccination status. Secondary outcomes were attitudes and perceptions toward influenza vaccination, along with patient care behaviors when treating an influenza patient.

Ultimately, 2796 EMS clinicians throughout Virginia completed the survey sufficiently for analysis. Participants were mean 43.5 y old, 60.7% male, and included the full range of certifications. Overall, 79.4% of surveyed EMS clinicians received a seasonal flu vaccine, 74% had previously had the flu, and 18% subjectively reported previous side effects from the flu vaccine. Overall, 54% of respondents believed their agency has influenza or respiratory specific plans or procedures.

In a large, state-wide survey of EMS clinicians, overall influenza vaccination coverage was 79.4%. Understanding the underlying beliefs of EMS clinicians remains a critical priority for protecting these frontline clinicians. Agencies should consider practical policies, such as on-duty vaccination, to increase uptake.