![]() | |||||
|
| |||||
| |
|
Search
Healthcare Business at HIN:
Members
Only Bookstore Link your company's Web site or Intranet to HIN Career
Center Earn gift certificates by referring your colleagues to the Healthcare Intelligence Network!
| Hospital and Health SystemSTORY OF THE WEEK Share this article with a colleague!
Reducing ER Visits with New Life Support Rules
A new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that a single standard guideline could help EMS and ER teams determine which cardiac arrest victims might benefit from a trip to the hospital, while at the same time reducing futile efforts on patients who have no chance of surviving a cardiac arrest.
The study shows that EMS teams can use either a simple five- or three-part rule to determine when they should discontinue efforts to revive cardiac arrest patients on the scene where their heart stopped beating. The same rule will also tell them when they should keep trying to resuscitate the patient while transporting him or her to the nearest ER. The three-part rule may be sufficient to identify 99.8 percent of those who need to be transported to the hospital for further care, the researchers say.
The three-part rule, called a ‘basic life support’ or BLS rule, calls for EMS teams to end their resuscitation efforts if a cardiac arrest occurred before EMS arrived, if no defibrillator was used (for instance, because there was none for a bystander to use, the EMS crew didn’t have one, or an automated external defibrillator (AED) did not detect a shockable rhythm), and if the team can’t get the patient’s blood to begin circulating again. All three must apply for resuscitation efforts to be stopped. The five-part rule, called the ‘advanced life support’ or ALS rule, adds two more criteria to the list: the cardiac arrest had no witnesses at all, and no bystander attempted to perform CPR. If this more conservative rule had been applied to the 5,505 cardiac arrest victims in the study, 1,192 patients would have been declared dead at the scene, saving 245 trips to the ER.
The study also found that:
The BLS rule misclassified only 0.2 percent of patients, and the ALS rule classified all patients correctly. Either rule, the authors say, could be used — but the BLS rule would save the most emergency medical resources while still meeting ethical criteria for medical care. “Through our study and others, the BLS rule has now been applied to more than 10,000 patients in the U.S. and Canada, with less than a 0.1 percent misclassification rate,” says Comilla Sasson, M.D., M.S., the study’s lead author and a Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar at the U-M Medical School. “Currently, EMS systems vary widely in the care they deliver to cardiac arrest patients. To implement the BLS rule more widely would standardize the care and transport of these patients, so that we can reduce the risk of injuries or death to EMS personnel and the public in high speed transports, decrease the pressure on our overcrowded ER’s, allow our ER staff to focus on patients who can be treated and open up intensive care unit beds.”
Source: University of Michigan Health System, September 23, 2008
This special report provides a blueprint for health plans, hospitals and providers desiring to address and reduce unnecessary ED utilization in their populations.
For Emergency Use Only: Curbing Unnecessary Emergency Room Use Through Education, Accountability and Physician Engagement is available from the Healthcare Intelligence Network for $107 by visiting our
Online Bookstore or by calling toll-free (888) 446-3530. | |
© Copyright 2008 Healthcare Intelligence Network E-mail:info@hin.com Call toll-free (888) 446-3530 | ||