Analysis of Medical Management in Geriatric Patients in the Hospital Emergency Department by Example of Selected Cities with County Status in Poland: A Retrospective Cohort Study

The aim of this study was to analyse medical management in geriatric patients in the Hospital Emergency Departments in the Biała Podlaska County and Chełm County (Poland) between 2016 and 2018 in a group of patients ≥65 years of age. We analysed medical records of 829 patients transported to Hospital Emergency Departments by Medical Emergency Teams. The research was conducted in the period from June 2019 to March 2020. We analysed emergency medical procedure forms and medical records of patients transported to the hospitals. Cardiovascular diseases were diagnosed in 40% of patients. Mortality cases accounted for 3.1% of the 1200 interventions analysed. Ambulance dispatch resulted in the patient being transported to the Hospital Emergency Departments in more than 2/3 of cases. The concordance between the diagnoses made by the Medical Emergency Teams and those made at the Hospital Emergency Departments was confirmed for 78% patients admitted to the department (n = 647), whereas the concordance of classification at the group level was estimated at 71.7% (n = 594). Further in-patient treatment was initiated in some of the patients admitted to the department (n = 385). The mean time of hospital stay was 10.1 days. In conclusion, differences between the initial diagnosis made by the heads of the Medical Emergency Teams and the diagnosis made by the doctor on duty in the Hospital Emergency Departments depended on the chapter of diseases in the ICD-10 classification, but they were acceptable. The majority of the patients were transported to Hospital Emergency Departments. The most common groups of diseases that require Hospital Emergency Departments admission include cardiovascular diseases, injuries due to external causes, and respiratory diseases. A moderate percentage of patients were qualified for further specialist treatment in hospital departments.

Triggers and Interventions of Patients Who Require Medical Emergency Team Reviews: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Single Versus Multiple Reviews

Background Medical emergency teams constitute part of the escalation protocol of early warning systems in many hospitals. The literature indicates that medical emergency teams may reduce hospital mortality and cardiac arrest. A greater understanding of pathways of patients who experience multiple medical emergency team reviews will inform clinical decision-making. Objectives To explore differences between patients who require a single medical emergency team review and those who require multiple reviews, and to identify any differences between patients who were reviewed only once during admission and patients who required multiple reviews. Methods Data for this retrospective cross-sectional review, including demographic data, call triggers, outcomes, and interventions, were routinely collected from January 2013 through December 2015. The study adhered to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) collaborative’s cross-sectional studies checklist (version 4). Results Of 54 787 admitted patients, 1274 (2%) required a call to a medical emergency team; of those, 260 patients (20%) needed multiple calls. Patients requiring multiple calls demonstrated higher mortality (odds ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.12–1.98]). A logistic regression model identified surgical patients and those receiving antibiotics and respiratory interventions at the first medical emergency team review as being more likely to require multiple reviews. Patients transferred to a higher level of care after the first review were less likely to require another review. Conclusions Patients requiring multiple medical emergency team reviews have higher mortality. Surgical patients have a higher risk of requiring multiple reviews. Hospitals need to include more details on surgical patients when auditing medical emergency team activation.

Analysis of the Interventions of Medical Emergency Teams in Older Patients in Selected Polish Cities with County Status: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction: Geriatric patients account for a large proportion of interventions of medical emergency teams (METs). The aim of this study was to analyse medical emergency interventions in the Biała Podlaska and Chełm (Poland) between 2016 and 2018 in a group of patients ≥ 65 years of age. Materials and Methods: We analysed medical records of 1200 older patients treated by METs in Biała Podlaska and Chełm (Lublin Province, Poland). The research was conducted from June 2019 to March 2020 at the Emergency Medical Service Station in Biała Podlaska and the Medical Rescue Station in Chełm (Independent Public Complex of Health Care Facilities). Results: A total of 92.5% of medical emergency service interventions took place at the patient’s home. The mean time of stay at the scene was 20 min. The highest number of interventions occurred between 8:00 p.m. and 8:59 p.m. There were no statistically significant differences in the type of ambulance used depending on the patient’s sex, while there was a statistically significant relationship between priority code and sex. Cardiovascular diseases were diagnosed in 40% of patients, and the symptoms were not precisely classified in almost the same percentage of patients. Mortality cases accounted for 3.1% of the 1200 interventions analysed. Ambulance dispatch resulted in the patient being transported to the hospital emergency department in 69.1% of cases. Conclusions: METs were called for a variety of diseases due to the fact that geriatric patients are not able to distinguish a life-threatening condition. Medical procedures performed by METs from Biała Podlaska and Chełm were closely related to the initial diagnoses made by these teams. It was irrelevant whether a specialist or non-specialist medical emergency service was used. Paramedics are very well trained to practice their profession and are able to provide treatment to older patients in a state of sudden life threat.

Correction to: A point-of-care thoracic ultrasound protocol for hospital medical emergency teams (METUS) improves diagnostic accuracy

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

A point-of-care thoracic ultrasound protocol for hospital medical emergency teams (METUS) improves diagnostic accuracy

Background Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has proven itself in many clinical situations. Few data on the use of POCUS during Medical Emergency Team (MET) calls exist. In this study, we hypothesized that the use of POCUS would increase the number of correct diagnosis made by the MET and increase MET’s certainty. Methods Single-center prospective observational study on adult patients in need for MET assistance. Patients were included in blocks (weeks). During even weeks, the MET physician performed a clinical assessment and registered an initial diagnosis. Subsequently, the POCUS protocol was performed and a second diagnosis was registered (US+). During uneven weeks, no POCUS was performed (US−). A blinded expert reviewed the charts for a final diagnosis. The number of correct diagnoses was compared to the final diagnosis between both groups. Physician’s certainty, mortality and possible differences in first treatment were also evaluated. Results We included 100 patients: 52 in the US + and 48 in the US− group. There were significantly more correct diagnoses in the US+ group compared to the US− group: 78 vs 51% (P = 0.006). Certainty improved significantly with POCUS (P < 0.001). No differences in 28-day mortality and first treatment were found. Conclusions The use of thoracic POCUS during MET calls leads to better diagnosis and increases certainty. Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov. Registered 12 July 2017, NCT03214809 https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03214809?term=metus&cntry=NL&draw=2&rank=1

Outcomes of Patients Treated with Prehospital Noninvasive Ventilation: Observational Retrospective Multicenter Study in the Northern French Alps

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) improves the outcome of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (AcPE) and acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aeCOPD) but is not recommended in pneumonia. The aim of this study was to assess the appropriateness of the use of NIV in a prehospital setting, where etiological diagnostics rely mainly on clinical examination. This observational multicenter retrospective study included all the patients treated with NIV by three mobile medical emergency teams in 2015. Prehospital diagnoses and hospital diagnoses were extracted from the medical charts. The appropriateness of NIV was determined by matching the hospital diagnosis to the current guidelines. Among the 14,067 patients screened, 172 (1.2%) were treated with NIV. The more frequent prehospital diagnoses were AcPE (n = 102, 59%), acute respiratory failure of undetermined cause (n = 46, 28%) and aeCOPD (n = 17, 10%). An accurate prehospital diagnosis was more frequent for AcPE (83/88, 94%) than for aeCOPD (14/32, 44%; p < 0.01). Only two of the 25 (8%) pneumonia cases were diagnosed during prehospital management. Prehospital NIV was inappropriate for 32 (21%) patients. Patients with inappropriate NIV had a higher rate of in-hospital intubation than patients with appropriate NIV (38% vs. 8%; p < 0.001). This high frequency of inappropriate NIV could be reduced by an improvement in the prehospital detection of aeCOPD and pneumonia.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between nurse practitioner and registrar-led medical emergency teams: a propensity-matched analysis

Objective Medical emergency teams (MET) are mostly led by physicians. Some hospitals are currently using nurse practitioners (NP) to lead MET calls. These are no studies comparing clinical outcomes between these two care models. To determine whether NP-led MET calls are associated with lower risk of acute patient deterioration, when compared to intensive care (ICU) registrar (ICUR)-led MET calls. Methods The composite primary outcome included recurrence of MET call, occurrence of code blue or ICU admission within 24 h. Secondary outcomes were mortality within 24 h of MET call, length of hospital stay, hospital mortality and proportion of patients discharged home. Propensity score matching was used to reduce selection bias from confounding factors between the ICUR and NP group. Results A total of 1343 MET calls were included (1070 NP, 273 ICUR led). On Univariable analysis, the incidence of the primary outcome was higher in ICUR-led MET calls (26.7% vs. 20.6%, p = 0.03). Of the secondary outcome measures, mortality within 24 h (3.4% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.002) and hospital mortality (12.7% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.001) were higher in ICUR-led MET calls. Propensity score-matched analysis of 263 pairs revealed the composite primary outcome was comparable between both groups, but NP-led group was associated with reduced risk of hospital mortality (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35–0.91, p = 0.02) and higher likelihood of discharge home (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.09–2.2, p = 0.015). Conclusion Acute patient deterioration was comparable between ICUR- and NP-led MET calls. NP-led MET calls were associated with lower hospital mortality and higher likelihood of discharge home.