Immobilization in Emergency Medical Service - Are CSR and NEXUS-Criteria Considered? A Matched-Pairs Analysis Between Trauma Patients Treated by Onsite EMS Physicians and Patients Treated by Tele-EMS Physicians

• Published in: Open access emergency medicine Vol. 15; pp. 145 - 155
• Main Authors: Hofstetter, Paula, Schröder, Hanna, Beckers, Stefan K, Borgs, Christina, Rossaint, Rolf, Felzen, Marc
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New Zealand Dove Medical Press Limited 01.01.2023; Dove; Dove Medical Press
• Subjects: canadian c-spine rule; Corporate social responsibility; Emergency medical services; Emergency medicine; immobilization; nexus-criteria; Original Research; Physicians; tele-emergency medicine; trauma; Canada; Germany; tele-emergency medicine; trauma; NEXUS-criteria; Canadian C-spine rule; immobilization; emergency medicine
• ISSN: 1179-1500; 1179-1500
• DOI: 10.2147/OAEM.S386650

The NEXUS-low-risk criteria (NEXUS) and Canadian C-spine rule (CSR) are clinical decision tools used for the prehospital spinal clearance in trauma patients, intending to prevent over- as well as under immobilization. Since 2014, a holistic telemedicine system is part of the emergency medical service (EMS) in Aachen (Germany). This study aims to examine whether the decisions to immobilize or not by EMS- and tele-EMS physicians are based on NEXUS and the CSR, as well as the guideline adherence concerning the choice of immobilization device. A single-site retrospective chart review was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were EMS physician and tele-EMS physician protocols with traumatic diagnoses. Matched pairs were formed, using age, sex and working diagnoses as matching criteria. The primary outcome parameters were the criteria documented as well as the immobilization device used. The evaluation of the decision to immobilize based on the criteria documented was defined as secondary outcome parameter. Of a total of 247 patients, 34% (n = 84) were immobilized in the EMS physician group and 32.79% (n = 81) in the tele-EMS physician group. In both groups, less than 7% NEXUS or CSR criteria were documented completely. The decision to immobilize or not was appropriately implemented in 127 (51%) in the EMS-physician and in 135 (54, 66%) in the tele-EMS physician group. Immobilization without indication was performed significantly more often by tele-EMS physicians (6.88% vs 2.02%). A significantly better guideline adherence was found in the tele-EMS physician group, preferring the vacuum mattress (25, 1% vs 8.9%) over the spineboard. It could be shown that NEXUS and CSR are not applied regularly, and if so, mostly inconsistently with incomplete documentation by both EMS- and tele-EMS physicians. Regarding the choice of the immobilization device a higher guideline adherence was shown among the tele-EMS physicians.