Furosemide is good for filling the patient’s bladder, but the patient probably did not call for help filling his/her bladder.

- Rogue Medic

Does a Medic Need Two Eyes to be Safe?


 

When this story first was reported, there were plenty of social media comments about the lack of safety of having only one eye.

Is there any difference in outcomes for patients treated by two-eyed medics and one-eyed medics? What about medics who wear glasses? Should a three-eyed medic be given preference over two-eyed medics?

Is there any evidence of a difference in job performance?

Is there any evidence of a difference in driving?

Is there any evidence of a difference in anything that is a part of the job?

Provide some valid evidence.

If we are going to make these decisions without evidence, we should admit that we are basing our decisions on prejudice.
 

A Queens woman with a prosthetic eye is suing the FDNY because it won’t hire her as a paramedic.[1]

 

The article lacks information. There may be other reasons she has not been hired, but NYFD is not likely to discuss those directly in the media, because that might also lead to a law suit. If this does go to court there should be more information available.

This topic has generated a lot of righteous indignation from those who insist that two eyes are necessary for the safety of patients. I have not yet seen any evidence to support their attitude.

If there is valid evidence that I am wrong, I am willing to learn from that.
 

See also -

Improving EMS By Hiring Deaf EMTs

-

Footnotes:

-

[1] FDNY won’t hire woman with fake eye as paramedic: suit
By Kathianne Boniello and Georgett Roberts
July 6, 2014 | 4:37am
NY Post
Article

.

When is a double dose of defibrillation a good idea?

 
In the comments to Double simultaneous defibrillators for refractory ventricular fibrillation, NCMedic and Ambulance Driver write that they have already begun using variations on double defibrillation.
 

That     is     excellent.

 


 

The changes in when to implement the change, as well as the vector to use, are reasons we need to have people publishing results on what is being done. Please, work with your medical directors and/or others to publish some results.

We have had epinephrine (Adrenaline in Commonwealth countries) in ACLS (Advanced Cardiac Life Support) guidelines, and our protocols, for decades, but we still do not know the best dose or even which patients benefit.

NCMedic writes –
 

Has been in our protocols for sometime now, we are finding it more beneficial sooner than later for obvious reasons, next protocol revision will most likely have it on the 4th shock with the 2nd set of pads placed A/P to cover from a different vector.

 

Epinephrine seems to be harmful when given later, or is epinephrine less beneficial later, or is epinephrine always harmful, just much more harmful later, or something else.[1]

The problem is that we do not know when, or for whom, epinephrine is indicated.

Epinephrine is probably indicated in some patients, but which patients, at what dose, and at what time? If epinephrine should be repeated all of the same questions apply to all further doses. Dr. Scott Weingart points out how little we know about the use of epinephrine, because his approach makes more sense than what ACLS recommends and the evidence is equally lacking.[2]

There are many things in the presentation to discuss, such as Dr. Weingart’s misunderstanding of what nihilism means, but that is for another time.
 

There does not appear to be any harm from double defibrillation. As we use more current more often, we should expect to learn of harms, as we do with almost every intervention. However, as NCMedic states, we may be doing harm by waiting too long to deliver the double dose.

Should it be a double dose?

What about 1 ½ times the maximum?

300 j bi-phasic or 540j mono-phasic or maybe some combination of bi-phasic and mono-phasic, and if a combination, what combination, with drugs or without, which drugs if with drugs, . . . ?

What about 3 times the maximum?

600 joules bi-phasic or 1,080 joules mono-phasic or . . . ?

Should the higher-dose defibrillation be after the fifth shock with a return to VF/pulseless VT (Ventricular Fibrillation/pulseless Ventricular Tachycardia)? After the fourth shock? After the third shock? After the second shock? After the first shock?

Is waiting longer to increase joules making it more likely that epinephrine will be given? Is epinephrine more harmful than a double shock, less harmful than a double shock, or roughly the same?

The amount we do not know is huge.

We should learn what we are doing to our patients and not arrogantly choose to remain ignorant, as we have chosen with epinephrine. That is changing, but some still defend the arrogance of ignorance at the expense of our patients.[3]

-

Footnotes:

-

[1] Does Faster Epinephrine Administration Produce Better Outcomes from PEA-Asystole?
Sun, 25 May 2014
Rogue Medic
Article

-

[2] Podcast 125 – The New Intra-Arrest from SMACCgold
EMCrit
Dr. Scott Weingart
Web page with video and show notes.

-

[3] Effect of adrenaline on survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial
Jacobs IG, Finn JC, Jelinek GA, Oxer HF, Thompson PL.
Resuscitation. 2011 Sep;82(9):1138-43. Epub 2011 Jul 2.
PMID: 21745533 [PubMed - in process]

Free Full Text PDF Download of In Press Uncorrected Proof from xa.yming.com
 

This study was designed as a multicentre trial involving five ambulance services in Australia and New Zealand and was accordingly powered to detect clinically important treatment effects. Despite having obtained approvals for the study from Institutional Ethics Committees, Crown Law and Guardianship Boards, the concerns of being involved in a trial in which the unproven “standard of care” was being withheld prevented four of the five ambulance services from participating.

 

In addition adverse press reports questioning the ethics of conducting this trial, which subsequently led to the involvement of politicians, further heightened these concerns. Despite the clearly demonstrated existence of clinical equipoise for adrenaline in cardiac arrest it remained impossible to change the decision not to participate.

 

.

Double simultaneous defibrillators for refractory ventricular fibrillation

 
It looks as if the next generation of defibrillators will go to 11. This patient received a double dose of defib.

Is 720 joules too much?

If your answer is Yes, please explain how 720 joules is worse than death.

What about 400 joules? Some older mono-phasic defibrillators go to 400 joules, but we might see 400 joule bi-phasic defibrillators.

Until then, there is the possibility of using two defibrillators to deliver shocks at the same time, or milliseconds apart. By the time that this is a relevant treatment, the patient has been down for several shocks and is still in a shockable rhythm, but a supervisor or second medic unit should have arrived with a second defibrillator.
 


 

It is important to not put the pads from the same defibrillator next to each other.

The paper describes a patient with a BMI (Body Mass Index) of 40, a STEMI, and an onset of VF (Ventricular Fibrillation) in the presence of EMS.

CPR (being performed by the son when EMS arrived at the ED?), 200J x 3, epi x a bunch, amio x 1 by EMS.

High-quality CPR, a bunch more epi, 200 J x 2, lido x 1, bicarb x 1 (bicarb might have been indicated by the patient’s astrological sign), then the shock at 400 joules.
 

The patient then regained a palpable pulse and blood pressure. He had another brief episode of ventricular tachycardia that responded to a second defibrillation with 400 J. The patient had a wide QRS rhythm that quickly narrowed into normal sinus.[1]

 

Maybe the patient was not told about the concerns of some people that too much is too much. If he had been told, he would have remained dead, like a good scenario patient.

Next time he can follow the approved scenario.
 

Five studies have demonstrated safety in patients receiving 720 J of monophasic energy for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (17,22–25).[1]

 

Five papers demonstrate the safety of 720 joules in living patients with atrial fibrillation, but many in EMS will tell us that it is too dangerous to use on dead people after the failure of standard doses of energy.

Lake Sumter EMS has been providing compression-only CPR, even adding 720 joule defibrillation, and they may have the best resuscitation rates in America. The rest of us should consider catching up. I wonder how things have gone for LEMS, since I wrote about them a couple of years ago.[2]
 

 

While ROSC (Return Of Spontaneous Circulation) is not the right outcome to use to evaluate a treatment, 70% suggests that we should pay attention to what they are doing in Lake Sumter. 46% ROSC in those who could not get ROSC any other way by EMS.

You can’t be too safe is still a lie.

-

Also read –

When is a double dose of defibrillation a good idea?

-

Footnotes:

-

[1] Double simultaneous defibrillators for refractory ventricular fibrillation.
Leacock BW.
J Emerg Med. 2014 Apr;46(4):472-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2013.09.022. Epub 2014 Jan 21.
PMID: 24462025 [PubMed - in process]

-

[2] Optimizing Outcomes in Cardiac Arrest
Mon, 10 Dec 2012
Rogue Medic
Article

.

IAFF’s Jack Reall faces discipline for delaying a 911 call in order to protest research he does not like


 

One of the advantages of fire department-based EMS is that there is a clear chain of command and that discipline is not a problem. The exceptions to this may be rare enough that they make headlines. Here is one.
 

A Columbus Fire battalion chief could face discipline for insubordination after an internal investigation found that he disrupted a pilot program intended to more efficiently respond to emergencies.[1]

 

The first oddity is that the Battalion Chief (Jack Reall) is also the president of Local 67 of the International Association of Fire Fighters. A management position and a union position – and not just any union position, but president. Jack Reall apparently cannot keep his priorities in order.

The fire department is studying whether 911 calls should receive an initial response from one paramedic with a basic EMT or from a pair of paramedics. There is no evidence that sending one paramedic and one EMT causes any kind of harm, or that two paramedics provide better care, so there is no basis to claim that anyone is being in any way endangered by this pilot program.

If there were a legitimate concern, then the time to address that was when the pilot program was being considered. It appears that Jack Reall is not happy with that and his union boss persona delayed a 911 response in violation of fire department rules.
 

The Fire Division launched a pilot program that morning to reduce the number of paramedics who respond to routine calls, allowing the division to disperse medics elsewhere. Instead of two paramedics on a truck, there would be one medic and a basic emergency-medical technician, or EMT.[1]

 

Is it possible that this was a complete surprise to Battalion Chief/Union President Jack Reall?

I don’t know what kind of preparations were made by the fire department, but I suspect that they began well in advance of BC/Pres. Jack Reall’s attempt at sabotage.

It is appropriate to study things when there is a state of equipoise about which is best.

Equipoise is just a fancy word for We do not know which is best.

When we do not know what is best, we should find out, rather than arrogantly assume that we know all that we need to know to force an uninformed opinion on others. That is the alternative – I don’t know, but I am going to force my opinion on everyone else because I am certain my opinion is more important than learning the truth.

Research means we learn more, even if we never learn the whole truth. Opposing research is opposing learning more – especially if the truth disagrees with opinion.

Equipoise means that we cannot be certain, because we do not know enough to be certain.
 

Reall was against the plan from the start and said fewer paramedics meant lower-quality service.[1]

 

The fire department and the union probably have worked out procedures for resolving these differences of opinion. They probably do not include delaying 911 responses to make a point.

If Jack Reall were behaving responsibly, he would have raised these concerns at an appropriate time and place.
 

Reall said the plan was not presented well to firefighters and paramedics and was “not well thought out.”[1]

 

He did raise them at the appropriate time, but he did not get what he wanted.

When I don’t get what I want, as a responsible adult, I should throw a tantrum.

True or False?

A Battalion Chief is supposed to be a person to turn to to resolve confusion, not to create confusion. One part of the job is to make a clear decision (such as to protect the interests of a patient) and to take responsibility for that decision.

It appears that Reall was doing the opposite.

-

Footnotes:

-

[1] Firefighters-union chief faces discipline from Fire Division
By Lucas Sullivan
The Columbus Dispatch
Wednesday July 9, 2014 5:51 AM
Article

.

Ambulance Crash ‘Caused by’ Overtime?


 

Was this crash caused by paramedics working an extra shift, or two, or three, or . . . ?

Does management’s math work (as reported)? Does management’s math (as reported) suggest that management does not understand math (or that a mistake was made reporting the story)?
 

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – An ambulance crash at Ala Moana Center involved overworked paramedics on overtime.[1]

 

A paramedic on overtime? Oh, no! In many places, it seems that paramedics (who get paid more than basic EMTs) have to work more than one job to just be able to live paycheck to paycheck. Part of the problem is that we humans spend money unwisely (as a species, we are horrible at money management). Part of the problem is that EMS often does not pay well. If pay is low, people will work other jobs – or they will not be able to continue to pay their bills and complications ensue.

Here is the math problem.
 

The city wants to reduce chronic vacancies which lead to back-to-back shifts by changing the length of the shift from eight to 12 hours. The move would mean the city’s 22 ambulances could be run with one-third less staff each day, allowing other medics to have much-needed time off, but sources said the United Public Workers union is holding up the negotiations.[1]

 

If shifts are changed from 8 hours to 12 hours, there will be one third fewer shift changes, but that should not affect the number of calls the ambulances run. If the ambulances are not currently busy, changing the schedules might reduce the amount of time crews are not on calls, but so would cutting shifts. That does not seem to be an option, so this appears to be a bit of bad math that nobody in management has corrected.

If I work six 8 hour shifts a week, I am working 48 hours a week.

If I work four 12 hour shifts a week, I am still working 48 hours. I am only cutting the number of shifts in a week, not cutting the hours worked in a week.

If I work nine 8 hour shifts a week, I am working 72 hours a week. If I work six 12 hour shifts a week, I am still working 72 hours.

Should I expect to be any less tired if my shifts are divisible by 12, rather than by 8?

Will the proposed schedule result in fewer ambulances on the street at peak times. Someone will still have to pick up the patients. If ambulances are not currently busy, this could result in treating and transporting the same number of patients with fewer paramedics, but that can also be achieved with 8 hour shifts. Ambulance contracts often mandate that a certain percentage of response times be under X minutes. If management is able to get that to change, that could result in fewer crews on the street, but working much harder, and might be seen as a success by shortsighted management.
 


Download YouTube Video | YouTube to MP3: Vixy | Replay Media Catcher
 

We can speed up what we do, but at some point we will increase the rate of errors. This is to be expected and should not be blamed on the employees. Management deserves the blame. The role of management is to help the income producing employees to do their jobs, not to blame the employees for bad management.

I have worked for people who manage this way – and not just in EMS, but we do seem eager to make excuses for bad management.

If management is not capable of competence with simple math (as was reported here), what are their other weaknesses?

If management isn’t able to manage with 8 hour shifts, will Goldilocks come to the rescue when the shifts are 12 hours long?

-

Footnotes:

-

[1] First responders hurt in ambulance accident at Ala Moana
Posted: Jul 12, 2014 11:40 PM EDT
Updated: Jul 13, 2014 4:45 AM EDT
Hawaii News Now
Article

.

Remote CPR Skills Testing Online – A Crazy Idea?

ResearchBlogging.org
 

On the MedicCast, Jamie Davis interviews Roy Shaw of SUMO about a method of remote CPR certification for health care providers.
 

The Single Use Manikin Option, or SUMO™, is an AHA-compliant way of getting certified in CPR completely online.[1]

 


BlendedCPR.com
 

It looks too simple, but how complicated should we make it?

One of the problems with EMS is that we do not maintain skills that we do not use frequently. We know that we lose our skills very quickly, but we only retrain every couple of years (or every year) for the skills considered most important. If we care about our patients’ outcomes, we need to do better.
 

Not only have varying rates of skill acquisition been documented after traditional American Heart Association (AHA) training classes, but also universally poor skill performance of varying providers 3 to 6 months after CPR training has been established.11,–,15 [2]

 

Supervised on-line mannequin practice may be the most practical way for us to increase the rate of providing hands-on practice. As cameras become cheaper and smaller, as cell phones become much more interactive, we may have a way to do the same for intubation. Is there any good reason for practicing intubation less than once a month?

We need to improve our intubation, but everyone seems to think that the problem is with other medics and they do not need any practice. When the research is done, the problems continue. We like to intubate. We assume we are good at it. We hate to practice. we really like to make excuses. Our patients are the ones who are harmed. Other than bad assessment, bad intubation is probably the most deadly skill we have.
 

Training sessions occurred at entry into the study (time 0: initial skill acquisition) and then 1, 3, and 6 months after study entry.[2]

 

Each training session was less than five minutes long (one minute of testing, then two minutes of training), so the interference with work would be minimal, while the benefit would be significant.
 

In this study, lower rates of retention were observed in the training group that did not use a live instructor (automated defibrillator feedback only) compared with the group that used an instructor without automated feedback (instructor-only training).[2]

 

They suggest that the participants relied on the feedback from the automated devices and may not have learned to assess their performance themselves. During testing, the lack of machine feedback may have put them at a disadvantage. If machine feedback can be provided at the time of initiating compressions, The machine feedback could help. currently, that does not seem likely, so the use of only machine feedback is not as good an option as feedback from an instructor or from an instructor and a machine.
 

Although the automated feedback provided was targeted to CPR psychomotor skill errors, these systems do not provide constructive positive feedback. Instructors have an advantage: they were able to comment not only on skills done incorrectly, but also praise good performance.[2]

 

How well would this work in EMS?

We could make this something that is done once a week, or even at the beginning of each shift, on a different skill each time. Intubation/Airway management is the weak spot of EMS, so we could use this to improve.

If are only retraining on intubation/airway management once a year, or once every other year, we obviously are not taking patient care seriously and are trusting our luck, rather than any skill.
 

Go listen to the podcast on the Single Use Manikin Option (SUMO™) and consider if that would be a better way of recertifying. Maybe it is one way of implementing brief low-dose, high-frequency booster training in addition to recertification.

Also check out the site –

BlendedCPR.com

-

Footnotes:

-

[1] SUMO Remote CPR Skills Testing Online and Episode 392
By podmedic
June 30, 2014
MedicCast
Podcast/videocast page

-

[2] Low-dose, high-frequency CPR training improves skill retention of in-hospital pediatric providers.
Sutton RM, Niles D, Meaney PA, Aplenc R, French B, Abella BS, Lengetti EL, Berg RA, Helfaer MA, Nadkarni V.
Pediatrics. 2011 Jul;128(1):e145-51. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-2105. Epub 2011 Jun 6.
PMID: 21646262 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Free Full Text from Pediatrics.

-

Sutton RM, Niles D, Meaney PA, Aplenc R, French B, Abella BS, Lengetti EL, Berg RA, Helfaer MA, Nadkarni V. (2011). Low-Dose, High-Frequency CPR Training Improves Skill Retention of In-Hospital Pediatric Providers PEDIATRICS, 128 (1) DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-2105d

.

FREE Webinar from Annals of Emergency Medicine, the AHA, Dr. Bentley Bobrow, Dr. Christopher Crowe, Dr. Ashish Kumar Aggarwal, and Mark Venuti (paramedic)

 

Do you have questions about the best way to perform CPR?

If this FREE webinar does not answer them, there will be time to ask questions at the end.

Tuesday, July 8th 2014, 1pm EST (17:00 Universal Time).
 

Register for FREE at this link.
 


 

Dr. Bobrow is one of the people who has been focusing on improving the quality of chest compressions and minimizing interruptions. Two things that we know about CPR are that improving the quality of compressions and minimizing pauses in compressions make a big difference in neurologically intact survival.

These two improvements may be responsible for most of the improvement in survival since the 2005 ACLS guidelines.

That is the difference between the old focus on ALS (Advanced Life Support) because everybody knows the paramedic/nurse/doctor makes all of the difference and the new focus on compressions and keep the paramedics/nurses/doctors from doing things that interfere with compressions.

We are still waiting for some evidence that resuscitation rates would not increase even more if we just kept the paramedics/nurses/doctors away from the patient until after ROSC (Return Of Spontaneous Compressions).

You can read the guidelines, and the protocols, and the research at any time, but there are not many times when you are able to ask the experts responsible for creating all of them.
 

Register for FREE at this link.
 

Tuesday, July 8th 2014, 1pm EST (17:00 Universal Time).
.

Safety of Intranasal Fentanyl in the Out-of-Hospital Setting – A Prospective Observational Study

ResearchBlogging.org
 
I have been very critical of plans to have first responders treat people they suspect of having a heroin (or other) opioid overdose with naloxone.

Would first responders be safer with fentanyl?

It is not really the same question, but it does highlight the differences and why I think fentanyl is safer. The patient will be seen by someone more likely to recognize when the treatment is inappropriate. This study looked at IN (IntraNasal) fentanyl given by basic EMTs prior to transport to the ED (Emergency Department).
 


Image credit.
 

Previous studies demonstrate adverse effects in 3.3% to 39% of patients treated with intranasal fentanyl,3, 4 and 5 providing an ambiguous safety profile.[1]

 

The concentration of fentanyl (Instanyl in this study) is different from what I have available. They use 500 µg/ml, while I only have fentanyl in a concentration of 50 µg/ml. Ten times the volume does make measurement easier, but ten times the volume may impair absorption.
 

The atomizer contains a single dose with a prefixed quantity of either 50 μg (500 μg/mL) or 100 μg (1,000 μg/mL) fentanyl and has a dose volume of 0.1 mL (lower than the 0.15 mL limit necessary to avoid pharyngeal runoff7). The Instanyl preparation contains fentanyl in no other recipients than purified water and a phosphate buffer to match the physiologic environment of the nasal cavity and to increase bioavailability.9 [1]

 

Patients were not limited to healthy trauma patients, so these results can be generalized to a variety of patients.
 

We administered 50 μg to patients younger than 18 years, older than 65 years, with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or who were considered generally weakened or malnourished by the attending paramedic/EMT. All others received 100 μg. In patients reporting insufficient analgesia, the initial dose could be repeated once or twice after 10 and 25 minutes, respectively.[1]

 


 

The smaller decrease in level of pain suggests that they were more cautious in administering fentanyl to the comorbid patients.

The time between doses did lead to some extended scene times (first dose at 0 minutes, second dose at least 10 minutes later, and the third dose at least 35 minutes after the first dose), but that is usually preferable to causing extreme pain by moving the patient with inadequate pain management, regardless of the proximity of the hospital.
 


 

What many people fail to realize, doctors included, is that the hospital may only be five minutes away after we are in the ambulance, but we need to manage the pain before we move toward the ambulance. When I call for orders to give more pain medicine than I can give on standing orders, medical command doctors sometimes ask how far away from the hospital we are. I respond that it depends on when the pain is managed. Unless there is some medical condition that requires us to move the patient more quickly, we should move the patient only when the patient feels the pain is managed.
 

How effective was the intranasal fentanyl at managing pain?
 

I would prefer to lower the level of pain by more than they did, but I am accustomed to giving IV (IntraVenous) fentanyl, so I am able to titrate it more accurately.
 


 

Patients received 1 (n=526), 2 (n=333), or 3 (n=44) doses of fentanyl, with a mean cumulative dose of 114 μg.[1]

 

Fewer than 5% of patients required more than two doses.

They did give a variety of total doses of fentanyl. The result seemed to be similar regardless of the total dose. This could indicate that fentanyl is just a placebo (unlikely) or that the EMTs did a good job of titrating the medicine to the response.
 


 
 

This was a safety study, so how safe was intranasal fentanyl?
 

The criterion for hypotension is a bit different from what I am accustomed to. Even using MAP (Mean Arterial Pressure), I have not considered patients to be hypotensive above a MAP of 60.
 

We calculated the mean arterial pressure (MAP) and defined hypotension as a MAP reduction greater than or equal to 10 mm Hg and an end MAP less than or equal to 70 mm Hg.14 [1]

 

How much respiratory depression and hypotension did they have?
 

We did not observe respiratory depression (respiratory rate less than 11 breaths/min), GCS score reduction to 14 in 5 patients was transient, and there was no use of naloxone or mask ventilation. Ten patients (1%) had measurable hypotension; however, none experienced syncope and only 1 experienced dizziness, suggesting that these events were of low clinical importance. Indeed, pain relief may be partially responsible for the decrease in MAP.[1]

 

Studies repeatedly show that fentanyl can be given safely to hypotensive patients and half of the hypotensive patients were no longer hypotensive after fentanyl was given in one prehospital trauma study.[2] This suggests that a fluid bolus may be less effective than fentanyl at getting rid of hypotension.
 

As pointed out by O’Donnell et al,20 out-of-hospital undertreatment of pain in pediatric patients may be due to safety concerns. Our study supports the safety of intranasal fentanyl in children.[1]

 

Fentanyl is even safe in children and safe in adults with comorbidities even when given by basic EMTs.

It seems that fentanyl is safe and much more effective than not treating the pain. Is IN fentanyl more effective than other pain medicines? We still do not know.

-

Footnotes:

-

[1] Safety of intranasal fentanyl in the out-of-hospital setting: a prospective observational study.
Karlsen AP, Pedersen DM, Trautner S, Dahl JB, Hansen MS.
Ann Emerg Med. 2014 Jun;63(6):699-703. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.10.025. Epub 2013 Nov 22.
PMID: 24268523 [PubMed - in process]

-

[2] Fentanyl in the out-of-hospital setting: variables associated with hypotension and hypoxemia.
Krauss WC, Shah S, Shah S, Thomas SH.
J Emerg Med. 2011 Feb;40(2):182-7. Epub 2009 Mar 27.
PMID: 19327928 [PubMed - in process]

Full Text PDF Download at medicalscg.

My review of this paper –

Fentanyl in the out-of-hospital setting: variables associated with hypotension and hypoxemia
Fri, 27 May 2011
Rogue Medic
Article

-

Krauss, W., Shah, S., Shah, S., & Thomas, S. (2011). Fentanyl in the Out-of-Hospital Setting: Variables Associated with Hypotension and Hypoxemia The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 40 (2), 182-187 DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2009.02.009

-

Karlsen AP, Pedersen DM, Trautner S, Dahl JB, & Hansen MS (2014). Safety of intranasal fentanyl in the out-of-hospital setting: a prospective observational study. Annals of emergency medicine, 63 (6), 699-703 PMID: 24268523

.