There are plenty who … claim to be competent at intubation even though their last intubation was months ago on the third attempt and if the patient had not already been dead – that would have finished the patient off …

- Rogue Medic

What do you do when a patient wakes up during CPR?

ResearchBlogging.org
 

The return of consciousness without the return of a pulse is still rare, but may be more common with our increased focus on high quality chest compressions. There is still no evidence that interrupting chest compressions, for anything other than defibrillation, improves outcomes.

Is this due to the consistency of the machine? Maybe. Maybe not. We do not have enough evidence to draw that conclusion.

Is this growing population really growing? Maybe. Maybe not. We do not have enough evidence to draw that conclusion, either.

It could be that with the ability to use a cell phone camera to record these instances, there is more credibility to the reports. There is a suggestion that this could be common.
 

Parnia et al. conducted a multi-year, multi-center, prospective study of the frequency of awareness during resuscitation by interviewing cardiac arrest survivors after discharge. They found 55/140 (39%) had perceptions of awareness of being alive and even memories that originated during that time.2 [1]

 

Should we be giving ketamine to these patients?
 

Nebraska EMS CPR Sedation Protocol - ALS
Nebraska CPR Induced Consciousness Sedation Protocol (from the PDF)[1]
 

We should find out how common it is for people to regain consciousness without regaining a pulse. This is clearly an experimental protocol that is not supported by evidence of improved outcomes that matter – just like all of the rest of cardiac arrest treatment that is not compressions or defibrillation.
 

RESULTS: The search yielded 1997 unique records, of which 50 abstracts were reviewed. Nine reports, describing 10 patients, were relevant. Six of the patients had CPR performed by mechanical devices, three of these patients were sedated. Four patients arrested in the out-of-hospital setting and six arrested in hospital. There were four survivors. Varying levels of consciousness were described in all reports, including purposeful arm movements, verbal communication, and resuscitation interference. Management strategies directed at consciousness were offered to six patients and included both physical and chemical restraints.[2]

 

6/1,997 is 0.3% – not anywhere near the 39.3% of 55/140, but it is still a large enough group that we should not ignore them.

Depression and anxiety following resuscitation are significant problems, so this might even be a way to help decrease those resuscitation side effects.
 

CONCLUSION:
One fourth of OHCA-survivors reported symptoms of anxiety and/or depression at 6 months which was similar to STEMI-controls and previous normative data. Subjective cognitive problems were associated with an increased risk for psychological distress. Since psychological distress affects long-term prognosis of cardiac patients in general it should be addressed during follow-up of survivors with OHCA due to a cardiac cause.
[3]

 

The similarity to the outcome of STEMI (ST segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) patients do not inspire confidence in this approach, but that does not mean that it should not be examined.

It is most important that we not make the mistake that has been made with ventilations, endotracheal tubes, extraglottic airways, antiarrhythmic drugs, pressor drugs, anti-acidosis drugs, antidote drugs, anti-hypoglycemic drugs, et cetera. We should insist that there be valid evidence of some sort of benefit before the ACLS (Advanced Cardiac Life Support) Committee of Failed Treatments adds this to the ACLS algorithms because of an abundance of wishful thinking.
 

This time will be different.
 

This use of ketamine is interesting. Ketamine is a sedative that should not depress vital signs, so it may do what we expect. There may be more benefit than harm, but there may be more harm than benefit, or there may be all harm and no benefit. We will not know until we have valid research.

We have added the other treatments without finding out if they improve outcomes. We continue to remove these treatments as we obtain evidence, because they have one thing in common – they don’t improve outcomes.

These treatments have increased the ignorance of those who work in EMS (Emergency Medical Services) and EM (Emergency Medicine). We keep convincing ourselves that we know what we are doing, but evidence keeps showing that we are lying to ourselves.

Maybe ketamine sedation during compressions will be beneficial. It is such a small patient population, that it will be difficult to study. Introducing a treatment without studying it will always be a mistake. Is Nebraska studying this? Probably, but it is not stated in the paper. Has this been approved by an IRB (Institutional Review Board)? I do not know.

Footnotes:

[1] CPR induced consciousness: It’s time for sedation protocols for this growing population
Rice, D., Nudell, N., Habrat, D., Smith, J., & Ernest, E. (2016). Resuscitation DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.02.013
Free Full Text from Resuscitation.

[2] Return of consciousness during ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A systematic review.
Olaussen A, Shepherd M, Nehme Z, Smith K, Bernard S, Mitra B.
Resuscitation. 2015 Jan;86:44-8. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.10.017. Epub 2014 Nov 4. Review.
PMID: 25447435

[3] Anxiety and depression among out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors.
Lilja G, Nilsson G, Nielsen N, Friberg H, Hassager C, Koopmans M, Kuiper M, Martini A, Mellinghoff J, Pelosi P, Wanscher M, Wise MP, Östman I, Cronberg T.
Resuscitation. 2015 Dec;97:68-75. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.09.389. Epub 2015 Oct 9.
PMID: 26433116

Rice, D., Nudell, N., Habrat, D., Smith, J., & Ernest, E. (2016). CPR induced consciousness: It’s time for sedation protocols for this growing population Resuscitation DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.02.013

Olaussen A, Shepherd M, Nehme Z, Smith K, Bernard S, & Mitra B (2015). Return of consciousness during ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A systematic review. Resuscitation, 86, 44-8 PMID: 25447435

Lilja G, Nilsson G, Nielsen N, Friberg H, Hassager C, Koopmans M, Kuiper M, Martini A, Mellinghoff J, Pelosi P, Wanscher M, Wise MP, Östman I, & Cronberg T (2015). Anxiety and depression among out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors. Resuscitation, 97, 68-75 PMID: 26433116

.

The Fatal Flaw in Trial of Continuous or Interrupted Chest Compressions during CPR

ResearchBlogging.org
 

Trial of Continuous or Interrupted Chest Compressions during CPR — NEJM
 

In conclusion, among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in whom CPR was performed by EMS providers, a strategy of continuous chest compressions with positive-pressure ventilation did not result in significantly higher rates of survival or favorable neurologic status than the rates with a strategy of chest compressions interrupted for ventilation.[1]

 

This is not a study that has a valid control group to determine if there is any benefit from ventilation. There is no group that does not receive ventilations, so it is like a study of one type of blood-letting vs. another type of blood-letting with the researchers taking for granted that blood-letting does improve outcomes. That is not a problem if blood-letting actually improves outcomes.

Should we take it for granted that blood-letting improves outcomes and that the only hypothesis worth studying is which brand to choose?

Should we assume that ventilations are too sacred to ever be doubted?

Should we assume that there are better arguments for ventilations than for blood-letting? That is not true.
 

If we ignore this fatal flaw, the study is very well done. I really like the study design. It is an excellent example of how to study two different versions of an intervention after that intervention has been demonstrated to improve outcomes, but ventilations have never been demonstrated to improve outcomes in adult patients with cardiac causes of cardiac arrest.

Should we have assumed that blood-letting was too sacred to ever be doubted?
 

We do know that outcomes for seizure patients improve when EMS gives benzodiazepines, because some people cared enough to find out.[2]

Assuming that a treatment is too important to study is like building on a foundation in a swamp.
 


 

We still do not know if there is any benefit from including ventilations, because the study design assumes that we don’t want to know.

There is no good reason to believe that ventilations improve outcomes for adult patients with cardiac causes of cardiac arrest. This study has not done anything to change that.

Our patients deserve better. Why aren’t we finding out what improves outcomes?

Footnotes:

[1] Trial of Continuous or Interrupted Chest Compressions during CPR.
Nichol G, Leroux B, Wang H, Callaway CW, Sopko G, Weisfeldt M, Stiell I, Morrison LJ, Aufderheide TP, Cheskes S, Christenson J, Kudenchuk P, Vaillancourt C, Rea TD, Idris AH, Colella R, Isaacs M, Straight R, Stephens S, Richardson J, Condle J, Schmicker RH, Egan D, May S, Ornato JP; ROC Investigators.
N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 9. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 26550795

Free Full Text from NEJM.

[2] A comparison of lorazepam, diazepam, and placebo for the treatment of out-of-hospital status epilepticus.
Alldredge BK, Gelb AM, Isaacs SM, Corry MD, Allen F, Ulrich S, Gottwald MD, O’Neil N, Neuhaus JM, Segal MR, Lowenstein DH.
N Engl J Med. 2001 Aug 30;345(9):631-7. Erratum in: N Engl J Med 2001 Dec 20;345(25):1860.
PMID: 11547716 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Free Full Text from N Engl J Med. with link to PDF Download.

Nichol, G., Leroux, B., Wang, H., Callaway, C., Sopko, G., Weisfeldt, M., Stiell, I., Morrison, L., Aufderheide, T., Cheskes, S., Christenson, J., Kudenchuk, P., Vaillancourt, C., Rea, T., Idris, A., Colella, R., Isaacs, M., Straight, R., Stephens, S., Richardson, J., Condle, J., Schmicker, R., Egan, D., May, S., & Ornato, J. (2015). Trial of Continuous or Interrupted Chest Compressions during CPR New England Journal of Medicine DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1509139

Alldredge BK,, Gelb AM,, Isaacs SM,, Corry MD,, Allen F,, Ulrich S,, Gottwald MD,, O’Neil N,, Neuhaus JM,, Segal MR,, & Lowenstein DH. (2001). A Comparison of Lorazepam, Diazepam, and Placebo for the Treatment of Out-of-Hospital Status Epilepticus New England Journal of Medicine, 345 (25), 1860-1860 DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200112203452521

.

Benzodiazepines are often misused – Part I

 
The most commonly used benzodiazepines in EMS/EM (Emergency Medical Services/Emergency Medicine) are diazepam (Valium), lorazepam (Ativan), and midazolam (Versed). It should be relatively easy to look at the best research and determine –

1. Should benzodiazepines be the first parenteral medication given for seizures?

2. Should benzodiazepines be the first parenteral medication given for agitated delirium/excited delirium (it is a real condition that results in death in custody much more often than intentional police misbehavior)?

3. Should benzodiazepines be the first parenteral medication given for sedation?

In EMS/EM, some of the important things to consider are the time it takes for the drug to take effect, the likelihood that the drug will produce the desired effect, the seriousness of adverse effects and rate at which the most serious adverse effects occur.

Seizures

Is there any evidence that anything works quicker than IM (IntraMuscular) midazolam, when the patient does not already have an IV (IntraVenous line)?

Is there any evidence that an initial dose of 10 mg IM midazolam is too high of an initial dose for an adult (over 40 kg) or that 5 mg is too high of an initial dose for a child (40 kg or less)?

Is there any evidence that this dosing increases the rate of airway compromise above what would occur with lower doses?

The Rampart study[1] strongly suggests that 10 mg of IM midazolam is the best approach for the seizing patient who does not already have an IV, when IM midazolam is available. If midazolam is not available, such as due to poorly written protocols, midazolam is not an option and delaying less effective care to wait for the ideal treatment would be reckless.

There do not appear to be any studies that show any better outcomes with any other benzodiazepoines or with any other doses.
 

What about when an IV is already in place?

Should IV midazolam be used?

Should IV lorazepam be used?

Should IV diazepam be used?

Should some other drug be used?

The evidence is not clear, but is there any reason to believe that lorazepam, or diazepam, works as quickly as midazolam, when given intravenously?

Is there any reason to believe that lorazepam, or diazepam, produce fewer, or less serious, adverse effects than midazolam, when given IV?

I don’t know of any valid evidence to suggest that midazolam is inferior to either diazepam or lorazepam.

There is also the benefit in EMS of a much shorter time of effect for midazolam.

A drug that wears off quickly is going to be the safer EMS drug – unless there is a good reason to use a drug that lasts longer.

I will explain why wearing off quickly is important in EMS treatment of seizures in Part II (not yet posted).

Footnotes:

[1] Intramuscular versus intravenous therapy for prehospital status epilepticus.
Silbergleit R, Durkalski V, Lowenstein D, Conwit R, Pancioli A, Palesch Y, Barsan W; NETT Investigators.
N Engl J Med. 2012 Feb 16;366(7):591-600.
PMID: 22335736 [PubMed – in process]

Free Full Text from N Engl J Med.

I have written about this in Intramuscular Midazolam for Seizures – Part I,
Part II,
Part III,
Part IV,
Part V,
Part VI,
Misrepresenting Current Topics in EMS Research from EMS Expo – RAMPART,
and Images from Gathering of Eagles Presentation on RAMPART.

.

The Media are Just As Bad at Ethics As They are at Science

 
There is another article about the adrenaline (epinephrine in non-Commonwealth countries) vs. placebo in cardiac arrest trial that is about to start in England.[1] Media sites no longer seem to want to spend money to get valid information on science or ethics. Forbes provides another example of the writer completely missing the obvious.
 

It’s one thing to treat an incapacitated emergency patient without consent, when you’re administering a standard therapy already proven to be beneficial.[2]

 

Nobody is being deprived of anything that has been adequately tested on humans. Why assume that the untested and unknown standard treatment is beneficial?

The active drug (adrenaline) is an unknown. There is no good evidence that adrenaline improves outcomes.

If you disagree, provide some evidence that shows that adrenaline is better than placebo at anything that matters.

Adrenaline is an unknown because it has never been adequately studied. The only study that has tried to compare it to placebo was limited by politicians and the media – the people who know the least about how science works.

This is like being told that you will be put in a room with either a killer or a mannequin. Which one do you want. Except that we do not know if adrenaline is a killer. We do not have enough information. The only way to find out is to study it.

The research so far is negative. Is that because the adrenaline is given too late? Is that because too much adrenaline is given? Is that because we give it to everyone still dead after a few minutes?

We do not know.

We treat adrenaline like snake oil – Able to cure all kinds of cardiac arrest. Step right up and get your magic elixir. Cures baldness, too!
 


Image credit.
 

When the sales pitch is that the drug fixes everything, we should be very suspicious.

Cardiac arrest due to blood loss?   Give adrenaline.

Cardiac arrest due to slow heart rate?   Give adrenaline.

Cardiac arrest due to fast heart rate?   Give adrenaline.

Cardiac arrest due to irritated heart?   Give adrenaline.

Cardiac arrest due to not enough stimulus to the heart?   Give adrenaline.

Cardiac arrest due to drug over-dose?   Give adrenaline.

Cardiac arrest due to drug under-dose?   Give adrenaline.

Cardiac arrest due to diabetes problem?   Give adrenaline.

Cardiac arrest due to infectious disease?   Give adrenaline.

Cardiac arrest due to lightning strike?   Give adrenaline.

Cardiac arrest due to drowning?   Give adrenaline.

Cardiac arrest due to asthma?   Give adrenaline.

Cardiac arrest due to stroke?   Give adrenaline.

Cardiac arrest due to cancer?   Give adrenaline.

Cardiac arrest due to adrenaline overdose?   Give adrenaline.

We do not discriminate. We just give adrenaline. All of the other drugs have failed to produce a benefit, but we still believe in adrenaline without good evidence. We have been using adrenaline for over half a century on unsuspecting people and we still have no evidence that it works.
 

However, the more important issue is what you as a patient think. Should scientists be able to enroll you in a life-or-death medical experiment without your consent?[2]

 

Adrenaline has worked in laboratory animals, but every drug that is tested in humans is supposed to have worked in animals. Why doesn’t adrenaline work in humans? If it does work, where is the evidence?

The standard of care is an experiment that is not controlled and not even acknowledged. The guidelines clearly state that we do not know what works and that we should only consider adrenaline, but that we do not have any good evidence that adrenaline improves outcomes for anyone.

The ethical failure is that we have failed to find out if what we are giving is harmful.
 

We have only improved outcomes when we have ignored the drugs and paid attention to chest compressions and defibrillation.
 

We are lying to patients when we tell them that we know what works in cardiac arrest.

How much worse than placebo is adrenaline? We don’t know. Failing to find out is what is unethical.

Footnotes:

[1] Does a Placebo vs. Adrenaline Study Deprive Patients of Necessary Care According to the Resuscitation Guidelines?
Wed, 27 Aug 2014
Rogue Medic
Article

[2] UK To Experiment on Cardiac Arrest Patients Without Their Consent
8/27/2014 @ 3:55PM
Paul Hsieh – Contributor
Forbes
Article

.

Dr. Edward Tobinick Sues Barbara Streisand – or something equally foolish


Dr. Edward Tobinick might not be a quack, but his behavior suggest otherwise.
 

Having a medical degree does not mean not a quack.

Using FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approved drugs does not mean not a quack.

Having a medical web site that does not have the word “quantum” all over the place does not mean not a quack.

Threatening to sue people for writing about the lack of evidence for his treatments does not mean not a quack.
 

Dr. Edward Tobinick is suing Science-Based Medicine for writing about Dr. Edward Tobinick’s dubious medical practices.

That strongly suggests that Dr. Edward Tobinick is a quack.
 

The claims and practice of Dr. Tobinick have many of the red flags of a dubious medical practice, of the sort that we discuss regularly on SBM. It seems that Dr. Tobinick does not appreciate public criticism of his claims and practice,[1]

 

Essentially, what Dr. Edward Tobinick is saying is, Your valid criticism of the way I apparently take advantage of patients might discourage patients from shelling out money for my untested treatment.

or –

Your valid criticism of the way I apparently take advantage of patients might encourage patients to ask reasonable questions about my untested treatment – questions that I cannot honestly answer.
 

Etanercept might work, but so might steroids, or ribavarin, or eye of newt, or a kick in the groin.

All of these treatments are equally valid. Oddly, the patients receiving a kick in the groin will probably report the fewest symptoms after treatment. 90% of the kick in the groin patients claimed to be cured and not in need of any further treatment.

Without evidence, and with his opposition to evidence, Dr. Edward Tobinick is just a quack with a brainstorm. Nothing original there.
 

Dr. Edward Tobinick injects etanercept (Enbrel) around the spine. This is not something he covered in his dermatology residency, so has he injected etanercept into the spine yet?

Why etanercept? Etanercept is an immune suppression/anti-inflammation drug. Inflammation is a problem with everything, so preventing/reversing inflammation is the simplistic cure. If this worked in real people, and not just in the hypotheses of pathophysiologists, steroids would have cured everything decades ago.

Perhaps Dr. Edward Tobinick is imitating Dr. Michael Bracken, who is able to produce improved outcomes with steroids (anti-inflammation drugs) for spinal injury, but only when he is in charge of the data.[2]

At least Dr. Michael Bracken published some research to support his claims. Dr. Edward Tobinick just wants us to believe that his interpretation of pathophysiology is miraculously prescient.
 

Evidence? We ain’t got no evidence. We don’t need no evidence! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ evidence!
 

Maybe Dr. Edward Tobinick does have some valid evidence.

Maybe Dr. Edward Tobinick is just hiding the valid evidence because it is proprietary. 😉

Here are a couple of comments by Dr. Novella on science and the importance of evidence. They probably were not directed specifically at Dr. Edward Tobinick, but they do apply to him.
 

What do you think science is? There’s nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?

 

Science is the way we learn what works.

Dr. Edward Tobinick’s criticism is evidence that he does not understand science.

Is any treatment, that is not based on evidence, likely to provide a benefit to patients?
 

History is strewn with ideas that were intuitive and made sense at the time, but were also hopelessly wrong.

 
Alternative medicine, opposition to EBM (Evidence Based Medicine), and opposition to SBM (Science-Based Medicine) are all the same mistake – evidence denialism.

Evidence denialism is devotion to being hopelessly wrong and remaining ignorant of being wrong.
 

Barbara Streisand?[3]

Footnotes:

[1] Another Lawsuit To Suppress Legitimate Criticism – This Time SBM
Posted by Steven Novella
July 23, 2014
Science-Based Medicine
Article

[2] Cochrane and a Significantly Biased Review of Steroids for acute spinal cord injury
Fri, 25 May 2012
Rogue Medic
Article

[3] Streisand effect
Wikipedia
Article

Maybe there is no such thing as bad publicity for a quack, but the publicity associated with this law suit means that people will associate the name quack with Dr. Edward Tobinick, or vice versa.

Dr. Edward Tobinick is stating I am not a quack.

Reasonable people are hearing –

I, Dr. Edward Tobinick, am a quack.

.

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.

 

.

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

.

Is First Responder Narcan the Same as First Responder AED?


Image credit.
 

Are these the same?

If one works, does the other work?
 


Image credit.
 

The idea that first responders can safely give naloxone (Narcan) is popular, but only based on things that we want to be true. Dr. Oz would love it.

It has been suggested that giving first responders naloxone is the same as giving them AEDs (Automated External Defibrillators).[1] AEDs are defibrillators that can deliver the same shock as a manual defibrillator, but AEDs do not require all of the education needed to become a paramedic, nurse, PA, NP, or doctor.

Unlike naloxone, AEDs are designed to do almost all of the assessment for the first responder. The AED is only supposed to be attached to a pulseless patient, so assessment for responsiveness and the presence of a pulse is expected by the first responder. Is naloxone assessment that simple?

When a patient actually has an opioid overdose, it can be that simple, but –

Not all patients who respond after naloxone, respond because of naloxone.

This is the concept that is difficult to explain to the advocates of first responder naloxone programs.

1. Some advocates deny that this happens, even though it is documented.

2. Some advocates claim that we already know all that we need to know about naloxone.

3. Some advocates also claim that we should not study this because we already know all that we need to know.

Since there is overlap among the groups, the failure to understand the problem of improper assessment, especially among paramedics, nurses, and doctors is a huge problem. If we do not understand naloxone, with all of our education in pharmacology, how can we expect first responders to understand naloxone without any education in pharmacology?

What kind of education can prevent mistakes? How do we know?

If we listen to those who don’t know, but claim that they know all that they need to know, we will be ignoring the possibility of unintended consequences and assuming that we are too smart to make mistakes. Is that reasonable?

Do AEDs save lives?
 

CONCLUSION:

Addition of AEDs to this EMS system did not improve survival from sudden cardiac death. The data do not support routinely equipping initial responders with AEDs as an isolated enhancement, and raise further doubt about such expenditures in similar EMS systems without first optimizing bystander CPR and EMS dispatching.[2]

 

The problem is not that AEDs do not work.

The problem is not that AEDs are not safe.

The problem is thinking that AEDs are a simple solution to a problem that is not as simple as some would like us to believe.
 

The concept of equipping as many emergency responders as possible with AEDs has been widely adopted,2 and 31 but it should not be blindly adopted without improving the EMS system at all levels. This decision should be individualized to each EMS system based on all of the variables in EMS response. As an isolated enhancement, it is doubtful that addition of AEDs will provide a measurable survival benefit.[2]

 

If first responder naloxone were limited to people found with needles in their arms, less thought would be required. As the presentation of overdose changes to prescription opioids, there is less clear evidence of overdose and more of a need for a good assessment and understanding of pharmacology.

First responder naloxone may save lives, when it is administered appropriately. We should study this before implementation. Discouraging us from studying the safety and efficacy of this type of use of naloxone is bad medicine.
 

Also see –

Is ‘Narcan by Everyone’ a Good Idea?

Should Basic EMTs Give Naloxone (Narcan)?

The Myth that Narcan Reverses Cardiac Arrest

To Narcan or not Narcan

What About Nebulized Naloxone (Narcan) – Part I

Footnotes:

[1] I’ve heard that PA is looking to follow down the “Narcan for everyone” route, in allowing PD and BLS folks to give intranasal naloxone. . . .
Facebook
Narcan post

[2] EMT defibrillation does not increase survival from sudden cardiac death in a two-tiered urban-suburban EMS system.
Sweeney TA, Runge JW, Gibbs MA, Raymond JM, Schafermeyer RW, Norton HJ, Boyle-Whitesel MJ.
Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Feb;31(2):234-40.
PMID: 9472187 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

.