Objective There is an absence of nationally representative data describing pediatric patients who use emergency medical services (EMS) and the factors associated with EMS use by children. This study characterizes pediatric emergency department (ED) visits for which the patient arrived by EMS and identifies factors associated with those visits using a nationally representative database. Methods A secondary analysis of the ED component of the 1997–2000 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey was performed. The dependent variable was the mode of arrival to the ED (EMS vs. not EMS), and independent variables were grouped into four domains: demographic, clinical, system, and service characteristics. Bivariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results There were 110.9 million ED visits by children aged <19 years between 1997 and 2000. Pediatric patients constituted 27.3% of all ED visits during this time, and 7.9 million (7.1%) of these patients arrived via EMS. Pediatric patients represented 13% of all EMS transports. The annual EMS utilization rate by children was 26 per 1,000, compared with 66 per 1,000 in the adult population (p < 0.001). Sixteen percent of children transported by EMS were admitted to the hospital. Sixty-two percent of pediatric patients arriving at the ED by EMS were transported as a result of injury or poisoning. Characteristics significantly associated with arrival by EMS in the final multivariate model included demographic (age, African American race, urban residence), clinical (need for greater immediacy of care, illnesses associated with certain diagnoses), and service (greater number of diagnostic services) variables. Conclusions Pediatric patients transported by EMS are more likely to have injuries and poisoning, and have higher-acuity illness than those arriving at the ED by other means. The epidemiology of pediatric EMS use may have important operational, training, and public health implications and requires further study.

Objective We describe the decision-making process used by emergency medical services (EMS) providers in order to understand how: 1) injured patients are evaluated in the prehospital setting; 2) field triage criteria are applied in-practice; and 3) selection of a destination hospital is determined. Methods We conducted separate focus groups with advanced and basic life support providers from rural and urban/suburban regions. Four exploratory focus groups were conducted to identify overarching themes and five additional confirmatory focus groups were conducted to verify initial focus group findings and provide additional detail regarding trauma triage decision-making and application of field triage criteria. All focus groups were conducted by a public health researcher with formal training in qualitative research. A standardized question guide was used to facilitate discussion at all focus groups. All focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Responses were coded and categorized into larger domains to describe how EMS providers approach trauma triage and apply the Field Triage Decision Scheme. Results We conducted 9 focus groups with 50 EMS providers. Participants highlighted that trauma triage is complex and there is often limited time to make destination decisions. Four overarching domains were identified within the context of trauma triage decision-making: 1) initial assessment; 2) importance of speed versus accuracy; 3) usability of current field triage criteria; and 4) consideration of patient and emergency care system-level factors. Conclusions Field triage is a complex decision-making process which involves consideration of many patient and system-level factors. The decision model presented in this study suggests that EMS providers place significant emphasis on speed of decisions, relying on initial impressions and immediately observable information, rather than precise measurement of vital signs or systematic application of field triage criteria.

Objective To determine the predictive value of the Mechanism of Injury step of the American College of Surgeon’s Field Triage Decision Scheme for determining trauma center need. Methods EMS providers caring for injured adult patients transported to the regional trauma center in 3 midsized communities over two years were interviewed upon ED arrival. Included was any injured patient, regardless of injury severity. The interview collected patient physiologic condition, apparent anatomic injury, and mechanism of injury. Using the 1999 Scheme, patients who met the physiologic or anatomic steps were excluded. Patients were considered to need a trauma center if they had non-orthopedic surgery within 24 hours, intensive care unit admission, or died prior to hospital discharge. Data were analyzed by calculating positive likelihood ratios (+LR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each mechanism of injury criteria. Results 11,892 provider interviews were conducted. Of those, 1was excluded because outcome data were not available and 2,408 were excluded because they met the other steps of the Field Triage Decision Scheme. Of the remaining 9,483 cases, 2,363 met one of the mechanism of injury criteria, 204 (9%) of which needed the resources of a trauma center. Criteria with a +LR ≥5 were death of another occupant in the same vehicle (6.8; CI:2.7–16.7), fall >20 ft.(5.2; CI:2.4–11.3), and motor vehicle crash (MVC) extrication >20 minutes (5.0; CI:3.2–8.0). Criteria with a +LR between 2 and <5 were intrusion >12 inches (3.7; CI:2.6–5.3), ejection (3.2; CI:1.3–8.2), and deformity >20 inches (2.3; CI:1.7–3.0). The criteria with a +LR <2 were MVC speed >40 mph (1.9; CI:1.5–2.2), pedestrian/bicyclist struck >5mph (1.2; CI:1.0–1.5), bicyclist/pedestrian thrown or run over (1.2; CI:0.9–1.6), motorcycle crash >20mph (1.1; CI:0.96–1.3), rider separated from motorcycle (1.0; CI:0.9–1.2), and MVC rollover (1.0; CI:0.7–1.5). Conclusion Death of another occupant, fall distance, and extrication time were good predictors of trauma center need when a patient did not meet the anatomic or physiologic conditions. Intrusion, ejection, and vehicle deformity were moderate predictors.

We have identified a number of previously unrecognized barriers to and enablers for prehospital pediatric analgesia. The majority of these factors lead to an overall preference of paramedics to defer administration of analgesic agents. A number of educational and EMS system changes could be made to address these barriers and increase the frequency of appropriate pediatric prehospital analgesia.

Objective-To identify Emergency Medical Services (EMS) provider perceptions of factors that may affect the occurrence, identification, reporting, and reduction of near misses and adverse events in the pediatric EMS patient.Methods-This was a subgroup analysis of a qualitative study examining the nature of near misses and adverse events in EMS as it relates to pediatric prehospital care. Complimentary qualitative methods of focus groups, interviews, and anonymous event reporting were used to collect results and emerging themes were identified and assigned to specific analytic domains.Results-Eleven anonymous event reports, 17 semi-structured interviews, and 2 focus groups identified 61 total events, of which 12 (20%) were child-related. Eight (66%) of those were characterized by participants as having resulted in no injury, 2 (16%) resulted in potential injury, and 2 (16%) involved an ultimate fatality. Three analytic domains were identified which included the following five themes: reporting is uncommon, blaming errors on others, provider stress/discomfort, errors of omission, and limited training. Among perceived causes of events, participants noted factors relating to management problems specific to pediatrics, problems with procedural skill performance, medication problems/calculation errors, improper equipment size, parental interference, and omission of treatment related to providers' discomfort with the patient's age. Few participants spoke about errors they had themselves committed; most discussions centered on errors participants observed being made by others.Conclusions-It appears that adverse events and near misses in the pediatric EMS environment may go unreported in a large proportion of cases. Participants attributed the occurrence of errors to the stress and anxiety produced by a lack of familiarity with pediatric patients and to a reluctance to cause pain or potential harm, as well as to inadequate practical training and experience in caring for the pediatric population. Errors of omission, rather than those of commission, were perceived to predominate. This study provides a foundation on which to base additional studies of both qualitative * Note: Dr. O'Gara is now with Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, NY, and Dr. Pennington is now with Boston University/Boston Medical Center Department of Surgery, Boston, MA. and quantitative nature that will shed further light on the factors contributing to the occurrence, reporting, and mitigation of adverse events and near misses in the pediatric EMS setting.

We developed a consensus-based functional criterion standard definition of needing the resources of a trauma center, which may help to standardize field triage research and quality assurance in trauma systems as well as allow for cross study comparisons.

Background Verbal prehospital reports on an injured patient’s condition are typically used by trauma centers to determine if a trauma team should be present in the emergency department prior to patient arrival (i.e., trauma team activation). Efficacy studies of trauma team activation protocols cannot be conducted without a criterion standard definition for which pediatric patients need a trauma team activation. Objective To develop a consensus-based criterion standard definition for pediatric patients who needed the highest-level trauma team activation. Methods Ten local and national experts in emergency medicine, emergency medical services, and trauma were recruited to participate in a Modified Delphi survey process. The initial survey was populated based on outcomes that had been used in previously published literature on trauma team activation. The criterion standard definition for trauma team activation was refined iteratively based on survey responses until at least 80% agreement was achieved for each criterion. Results After five voting rounds a consensus-based definition for pediatric trauma team activation was developed. Twelve criteria were identified along with a corresponding time interval in which each criterion had to occur. The criteria include receiving specific surgery types, interventional radiology, advanced airway management, thoracostomy, blood products, spinal injury, emergency cesarean section, vasopressors, burr hole or other procedure to relieve intracranial pressure, pericardiocentesis, thoracotomy, and death in the emergency department. All expert panel members voted in all 5 voting rounds, except 1 member missed rounds 1 and 2. Each criterion had greater than 80% agreement from the panel. Conclusion A criterion standard definition for the highest-level pediatric trauma team activation was developed. This criterion standard definition will advance trauma research by allowing investigators to determine the accuracy and effectiveness of highest-level pediatric trauma team activation protocols. Level of Evidence/Study type Qualitative

The Physiologic Criteria are a moderate predictor of trauma center need for children. Missing or inaccurate vital signs may be limiting the predictive value of the Physiologic Criteria.