Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2023
Prehospital COVID-19 patients discharged at the scene - an observational study.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmergency medical services (EMS) were the first point of contact for many COVID-19 patients during the pandemic. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the non-conveyance decision of a COVID-19 patient was more frequently associated with a new EMS call than direct ambulance transport to the hospital.
methodsAll confirmed COVID-19 patients with an EMS call within 14 days of symptom onset were included in the study. Patients were compared based on their prehospital transport decision (transport vs. non-conveyance). The primary endpoint was a new EMS call within 10 days leading to ambulance transport.
resultsA total of 1 286 patients met the study criteria; of these, 605 (47.0%) were male with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of 50.5 (SD 19.3) years. The most common dispatch codes were dyspnea in 656 (51.0%) and malaise in 364 (28.3%) calls. High-priority dispatch was used in 220 (17.1%) cases. After prehospital evaluation, 586 (45.6%) patients were discharged at the scene. Oxygen was given to 159 (12.4%) patients, of whom all but one were transported. A new EMS call leading to ambulance transport was observed in 133 (10.3%) cases; of these, 40 (30.1%) were in the group primarily transported and 93 (69.9%) were among the patients who were primarily discharged at the scene (p<.001). There were no significant differences in past medical history, presence of abnormal vital signs, or total NEWS score. Supplemental oxygen was given to 33 (24.8%) patients; 3 (2.3%) patients received other medications.
conclusionNearly half of all prehospital COVID-19 patients could be discharged at the scene. Approximately every sixth of these had a new EMS call and ambulance transport within the following 10 days. No significant deterioration was seen among patients primarily discharged at the scene. EMS was able to safely adjust its performance during the first pandemic wave to avoid ED overcrowding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.