ArticlePrehospital emergency care2026
Evolution Over Time of EMS Statewide Treatment Protocols on Prehospital Agitation in the United States.
Article in Prehospital emergency care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEmergency medical services (EMS) clinicians' management of agitated patients have recently been highlighted by several high-profile events and the update of a National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) Position Statement. Our objective was to assess changes in EMS statewide treatment protocols (STP) for agitation over a 7-year period considering these events.
methodsWe performed a cross-sectional review of STPs in the U.S. in 2018 and 2025. We examined protocols related to agitation and extracted data regarding 11 recommendations from the NAEMSP Position Statement, including 1) specific protocols, 2) a standardized agitation score, 3) assessment for medical causes of agitation, 4) do not restrain a patient solely by law enforcement request, 5) verbal de-escalation, 6) physical restraint protocol, 7) pharmacologic management protocol, 8) prohibited restraint techniques, 9) patient monitoring, 10) prioritization of EMS clinician safety, and 11) when law enforcement should be involved. We calculated the proportion of states with each protocol recommendations. An EMS Physician adjudicated any discrepancies in data collection.
resultsThere were 29 STPs in 2018 and 31 STPs in 2025. Between 2018 and 2025, a larger proportion of STPs with 10 of the 11 recommendations: standardized agitation score (10% vs 29%), assessment for medical causes of agitation (90% vs 97%), do not restrain a patient solely by law enforcement request (0% vs 16%), verbal de-escalation (66% vs 100%), physical restraint protocol (97% vs 100%), pharmacologic management protocol (97% vs 100%), prohibited restraint techniques (72% vs 80%), patient monitoring (55% vs 71%), prioritization of clinician safety (93% vs 97%), and when law enforcement should be involved (76% vs 81%). The proportion of STPs with specific protocols for agitated patients remained similar between 2018 and 2025 (97% vs 97%). Three states included all 11 assessed recommendations from the revised NAEMSP Position Statement.
conclusionsChanges from 2018 to 2025 in STPs reflect limited implementation of recently updated national guidelines, including increased recommendations for verbal de-escalation, limited recommendations for objective agitation assessment and patient monitoring, and increased recommendations for use of ketamine. Based on our findings, STPs have an opportunity to align with national recommendations on agitation management.
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.