This study describes the local Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response and patient encounters corresponding to the civil unrest occurring over a four-day period in Spring 2020 in Indianapolis, Indiana (USA).

This study describes the non-conventional EMS response to civil unrest. The study included patients encountered by EMS in the area of the civil unrest occurring in Indianapolis, Indiana from May 29 through June 1, 2020. The area of civil unrest defined by Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department covered 15 blocks by 12 blocks (roughly 4.0 square miles) and included central Indianapolis. The study analyzed records and collected demographics, scene times, interventions, dispositions, EMS clinician narratives, transport destinations, and hospital course with outcomes from receiving hospitals for patients extracted from the area of civil unrest by EMS.

Twenty-nine patients were included with ages ranging from two to sixty-eight years. In total, EMS transported 72.4% (21 of 29) of the patients, with the remainder declining transport. Ballistic injuries from gun violence accounted for 10.3% (3 of 29) of injuries. Two additional fatalities from penetrating trauma occurred among patients without EMS contact within and during the civil unrest. Conditions not involving trauma occurred in 37.9% (11 of 29). Among transported patients, 33.3% (7 of 21) were admitted to the hospital and there was one fatality.

While most EMS transports did not result in hospitalization, it is important to note that the majority of EMS calls did result in a transport. There was a substantial amount of non-traumatic patient encounters. Trauma in many of the encounters was relatively severe, and the findings imply the need for rapid extraction methods from dangerous areas to facilitate timely in-hospital stabilization.

After officer-involved shootings (OIS), rapid delivery of emergency medical care is critical but may be delayed due to scene safety concerns. The purpose of this study was to describe medical care rendered by law enforcement officers (LEOs) after lethal force incidents.

Retrospective analysis of open-source video footage of OIS occurring from February 15, 2013 through December 31, 2020. Frequency and nature of care provided, time until LEO and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) care, and mortality outcomes were evaluated. The study was deemed exempt by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board.

Three hundred forty-two (342) videos were included in the final analysis; LEOs rendered care in 172 (50.3%) incidents. Average elapsed time from time-of-injury (TOI) to LEO-provided care was 155.8 (SD = 198.8) seconds. Hemorrhage control was the most common intervention performed. An average of 214.2 seconds elapsed between LEO care and EMS arrival. No mortality difference was identified between LEO versus EMS care (P = .1631). Subjects with truncal wounds were more likely to die than those with extremity wounds (P < .00001).

It was found that LEOs rendered medical care in one-half of all OIS incidents, initiating care on average 3.5 minutes prior to EMS arrival. Although no significant mortality difference was noted for LEO versus EMS care, this finding must be interpreted cautiously, as specific interventions, such as extremity hemorrhage control, may have impacted select patients. Future studies are needed to determine optimal LEO care for these patients.

Cadaveric and older radiographic studies suggest that concurrent cervical spine fractures are rare in gunshot wounds (GSWs) to the head. Despite this knowledge, patients with craniofacial GSWs often arrive with spinal motion restriction (SMR) in place. This study quantifies the incidence of cervical spine injuries in GSWs to the head, identified using computerized tomography (CT). Fracture frequency is hypothesized to be lower in self-inflicted (SI) injuries.

Isolated craniofacial GSWs were queried from this Level I trauma center registry from 2013-2017 and the US National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) from 2012–2016 (head or face abbreviated injury scale [AIS] >2). Datasets included age, gender, SI versus not, cervical spine injury, spinal surgery, and mortality. For this hospital’s data, prehospital factors, SMR, and CTs performed were assessed. Statistical evaluation was done with Stata software, with P <.05 significant.

Two-hundred forty-one patients from this hospital (mean age 39; 85% male; 66% SI) and 5,849 from the NTDB (mean age 38; 84% male; 53% SI) were included. For both cohorts, SI patients were older (P < .01) and had increased mortality (P < .01). Overall, cervical spine fractures occurred in 3.7%, with 5.4% requiring spinal surgery (0.2% of all patients). The frequency of fracture was five-fold greater in non-SI (P < .05). Locally, SMR was present in 121 (50.2%) prior to arrival with six collars (2.5%) placed in the trauma bay. Frequency of SMR was similar regardless of SI status (49.0% versus 51.0%; P = not significant) but less frequent in hypotensive patients and those receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The presence of SMR was associated with an increased use of CT of the cervical spine (80.0% versus 33.0%; P < .01).

Cervical spine fractures were identified in less than four percent of isolated GSWs to the head and face, more frequently in non-SI cases. Prehospital SMR should be avoided in cases consistent with SI injury, and for all others, SMR should be discontinued once CT imaging is completed with negative results.

Traction splinting has been the prehospital treatment of midshaft femur fracture as early as the battlefield of the First World War (1914-1918). This study is the assessment of these injuries and the utilization of a traction splint (TS) in blunt and penetrating trauma, as well as intravenous (IV) analgesia utilization by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in Miami, Florida (USA).

This is a retrospective study of patients who sustained a midshaft femur fracture in the absence of multiple other severe injuries or severe physiologic derangement, as defined by an injury severity score (ISS) <20 and a triage revised trauma score (T-RTS)≥10, who presented to an urban, Level 1 trauma center between September 2008 and September 2013. The EMS patient care reports were assessed for physical exam findings and treatment modality. Data were analyzed descriptively and statistical differences were assessed using odds ratios and Z-score with significance set at P≤.05.

There were 170 patients studied in the cohort. The most common physical exam finding was a deformity +/- shortening and rotation in 136 patients (80.0%), followed by gunshot wound (GSW) in 22 patients (13.0%), pain or tenderness in four patients (2.4%), and no findings consistent with femur fracture in three patients (1.7%). The population was dichotomized between trauma type: blunt versus penetrating. Of 134 blunt trauma patients, 50 (37.0%) were immobilized in traction, and of the 36 penetrating trauma victims, one (2.7%) was immobilized in traction. Statistically significant differences were found in the application of a TS in blunt trauma when compared to penetrating trauma (OR=20.83; 95% CI, 2.77-156.8; P <.001). Intravenous analgesia was administered to treat pain in only 35 (22.0%) of the patients who had obtainable IV access. Of these patients, victims of blunt trauma were more likely to receive IV analgesia (OR=6.23; 95% CI, 1.42-27.41; P=.0067).

Although signs of femur fracture are recognized in the majority of cases of midshaft femur fracture, only 30% of patients were immobilized using a TS. Statistically significant differences were found in the utilization of a TS and IV analgesia administration in the setting of blunt trauma when compared to penetrating trauma.

NackensonJ, BaezAA, MeizosoJP. A Descriptive Analysis of Traction Splint Utilization and IV Analgesia by Emergency Medical Services.Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(6):631–635.

With the proclamation of Bill 110 in September 2005, Ontario became the first jurisdiction in Canada to mandate that gunshot wounds (GSWs) be reported to authorities. We sought to evaluate the impact of Bill 110, including the awareness of, experience with and opinions about the new law among Ontario emergency physicians (EPs), the public and the police.

An online survey was distributed to all members of the Section on Emergency Medicine at the Ontario Medical Association. The public survey consisted of 3 closed questions and was performed by the polling firm Ipsos-Reid by telephone. Police opinion was requested through the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services of the Ontario government.

The physician response rate was 25%. The great majority of respondents were aware of the law (93%) and willing to comply (88%), but only half were sure of their obligations and the penalties. Since the law had been proclaimed, the majority (51%) had seen at least 1 GSW victim. Seventy-nine percent reported no problems with either the police or the bill, and 86% perceived no change in relations with patients. Six incidents of patients delaying care were reported. Of the public surveyed, two-thirds were aware of the law. After being informed of the law, almost all (95%) expressed support, and the majority (80%) felt it would not change their relationship with their treating physician. All 47 members of the Ontario Provincial Police who were surveyed agreed that Bill 110 is helpful for shooting investigations, 8 reported that they had personally been involved in cases initiated by a report and 6 had been involved in cases where charges were laid or weapons confiscated. Data on actual reports and results of investigations were not available.

Bill 110 seems to have been broadly accepted by the emergency community and endorsed by the public.