2021
DOI: 10.1186/s13049-020-00816-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Why do infants need out-of-hospital emergency medical services? A retrospective, population-based study

Abstract: Background The challenges encountered in emergency medical services (EMS) contacts with children are likely most pronounced in infants, but little is known about their out-of-hospital care. Our primary aim was to describe the characteristics of EMS contacts with infants. The secondary aims were to examine the symptom-based dispatch system for nonverbal infants, and to observe the association of unfavorable patient outcomes with patient and EMS mission characteristics. … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
(56 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our findings reflect that the educational initiatives for this project were centred around the clinical examination of infants and small toddlers. The extent of individual vital sign registration within our service is acceptable for infants and toddlers if the results are compared to other prehospital systems in the Nordic countries [ 6 , 18 ]: respiratory rate 34–51% (77% in our service), heart rate 59–66% (72% in our service), SpO 2 56–69% (69% in our service) and level of consciousness 29–83% (78% in our service). In United States EMS, registration rates of respiratory rate (81–89%) and heart rate (57–91%) appear to be higher [ 15 , 36 , 37 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our findings reflect that the educational initiatives for this project were centred around the clinical examination of infants and small toddlers. The extent of individual vital sign registration within our service is acceptable for infants and toddlers if the results are compared to other prehospital systems in the Nordic countries [ 6 , 18 ]: respiratory rate 34–51% (77% in our service), heart rate 59–66% (72% in our service), SpO 2 56–69% (69% in our service) and level of consciousness 29–83% (78% in our service). In United States EMS, registration rates of respiratory rate (81–89%) and heart rate (57–91%) appear to be higher [ 15 , 36 , 37 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Every tenth patient cared for by the Danish emergency medical services (EMS) is a paediatric patient, most often teenagers or infants and toddlers aged two years or younger [ 1 , 2 ]. Life-threatening events are infrequent among children [ 3 6 ]. Nonetheless, clinical examination of children with acute illnesses or injuries can be challenging for health care professionals who do not treat children on a daily basis and may be stressful in emergency settings [ 7 10 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on paramedics' own perceptions, such emotions traditionally seem to be commonly related to experiences involving acutely sick children and lonely elderly. Although these clearly differ from each other, a potentially common denominator between such experiences might be paramedics' sense of helplessness; paediatric patients are generally rare in EMS and often elicit stronger emotions in healthcare personnel [56], here buoyed by feelings of fear and, perhaps, uncertainty [57]. Meanwhile, daily occurring EMS assignments involving patients with complex pathologies or social distress, such as elderly loneliness, isolation, long-term substance abuse or chronic conditions, are not easily managed and treated before arriving at the hospital.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As younger children are more challenging for EMS clinicians to assess, 13,14 we separately evaluated the performance of these cut points among infants. Analyses were performed using the rms (v6.7‐0) 15 and cutpointr (v1.1.2) 16 packages in R, version 4.3.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%