We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Evaluate the experience of paramedic personnel at mass gatherings in the absence of on-site physicians.
Design:
Retrospective review of patients evaluated by paramedics with emergency medical services (EMS) medical control.
Setting:
First-aid facility operated by paramedics at an outdoor amphitheater involving 32 (predominantly rock music) concerts in accordance with the Chicago EMS System, June through September 1990.
Participants:
A total of 438 patients (≤0.1% on-site population) were evaluated.
Interventions:
Presentations to the first-aid facility were viewed as if the patient was presenting to an ambulance. Transportation to an emergency department was strongly recommended for all encounters. Time from presentation to the first-aid facility until disposition was limited to 30 minutes in the absence of on-line [direct] medical control. Refusal of care was accepted. On-line [direct] medical control with the EMS resource hospital was initiated as needed. Off-line [indirect] medical control consisted of weekly reviews of all patient records and periodic site visits.
Results:
Of the 438 patients, 366 (84%) refused further care, including 31 patients (7%) who refused advanced life support (ALS) level care. Seventy-two patients (16%) were transported; 37 by ALS and 35 by basic life support (BLS) units. On-line [direct] medical control was initiated in all ALS patients that were transported as well as for those who refused care. No known deaths or adverse outcomes occurred, based on lack of inquiries or complaints from the local EMS system, emergency departments receiving transported patients, law enforcement agencies, 9-1-1 emergency response providers, venue management, or security. No request for medical records from law firms have occurred. Problems noted initially were poor documentation and a tendency not to document all encounters (e.g., dispensing band-aids, tampons, earplugs, etc.). Concerns noted included: initial and subsequent vital signs, times of arrival, interventions, dispositions, and patient conditions of refusal. Specific problems with documentation of refusals at disposition included: appropriate mental status, speech, and gait; release with an accompanying family member or friend; and parental notification and approval of care for minors. There also was an initial tendency not to establish on-line [direct] medical control for ALS refusal or BLS medicolegal issues.
Conclusions:
The medical system configuration modeled after practices of prehospital care, demonstrates physicians did not need to be onsite when adequate EMS medical control existed with less than 30 minutes on-scene time.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.