OBJECTIVE: To be a first step in determining whether emergency medicine technician (EMT)-Basics are capable of using a protocol that allows for selective immobilization of the cervical spine. Such protocols are coming into use at an advanced life support level and could be beneficial when used by basic life support providers. METHOD: A convenience sample of participants (n=95) from 11 emergency medical services agencies and one college class participated in the study. All participants evaluated six patients in written scenarios and decided which should be placed into spinal precautions according to a selective spinal immobilization protocol. Systems without an existing selective spinal immobilization protocol received a one-hour continuing education lecture regarding the topic. College students received a similar lecture written so laypersons could understand the protocol. RESULTS: All participants showed proficiency when applying a selective immobilization protocol to patients in paper-based scenarios. Furthermore, EMT-Basics performed at the same level as paramedics when following the protocol. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between EMT-Basics and paramedics. A follow-up group of college students (added to have a non-EMS comparison group) also performed as well as paramedics when making decisions to use spinal precautions. Differences between college students and paramedics were also statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that EMT-Basics are as accurate as paramedics when making decisions regarding selective immobilization of the cervical spine during paper-based scenarios. That laypersons are also proficient when using the protocol could indicate that it is extremely simple to follow. This study is a first step toward the necessary additional studies evaluating the efficacy of EMT-Basics using selective immobilization as a regular practice.
OBJECTIVE: To be a first step in determining whether emergency medicine technician (EMT)-Basics are capable of using a protocol that allows for selective immobilization of the cervical spine. Such protocols are coming into use at an advanced life support level and could be beneficial when used by basic life support providers. METHOD: A convenience sample of participants (n=95) from 11 emergency medical services agencies and one college class participated in the study. All participants evaluated six patients in written scenarios and decided which should be placed into spinal precautions according to a selective spinal immobilization protocol. Systems without an existing selective spinal immobilization protocol received a one-hour continuing education lecture regarding the topic. College students received a similar lecture written so laypersons could understand the protocol. RESULTS: All participants showed proficiency when applying a selective immobilization protocol to patients in paper-based scenarios. Furthermore, EMT-Basics performed at the same level as paramedics when following the protocol. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between EMT-Basics and paramedics. A follow-up group of college students (added to have a non-EMS comparison group) also performed as well as paramedics when making decisions to use spinal precautions. Differences between college students and paramedics were also statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that EMT-Basics are as accurate as paramedics when making decisions regarding selective immobilization of the cervical spine during paper-based scenarios. That laypersons are also proficient when using the protocol could indicate that it is extremely simple to follow. This study is a first step toward the necessary additional studies evaluating the efficacy of EMT-Basics using selective immobilization as a regular practice.
Authors: Rick Hong; Molly Meenan; Erin Prince; Ronald Murphy; Caitlin Tambussi; Rick Rohrbach; Brigitte M Baumann Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2014-07
Authors: Michael Kreinest; Bernhard Gliwitzky; Svenja Schüler; Paul A Grützner; Matthias Münzberg Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 2.953