Dataset Information

[Nebulization of emergency medications in the south German rescue service].

ABSTRACT:

Background

In German emergency rescue services, inhalation treatment is routinely carried out by qualified health personnel. Standard operating procedures (SOP) for nebulization are neither uniform throughout Germany nor available in all federal states. Standardized recommendations with respect to which nebulizer type should be used are missing. The aerosol output as well as the drug deposition rates of jet and mesh nebulizers, however, differ considerably. Mesh devices can achieve a threefold higher lung deposition. Their use in emergency departments has also been shown to be associated with a better patient outcome when compared to jet nebulizers.

Objective

This survey was designed to evaluate the type of nebulizer used in the south German rescue services. Special attention was paid to the influence of existing SOP on the decision to perform nebulization during emergency treatment.

Material and methods

A total of 4800 emergency paramedics working in Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria and Rhineland-Palatinate received a questionnaire with a total of 17 questions on the implementation of drug nebulization in the daily practice.

Results

Despite the existence of more efficient nebulizer types, the jet nebulizer was by far the most frequently used nebulizer in the south German rescue services. The deposition rates of both the jet and mesh nebulizers were considerably overestimated by most respondents; however, 77.5% of all respondents could not give any information about the deposition rates of the mesh nebulizer. Only two thirds of all respondents carried out nebulization treatment on the basis of SOP. The implementation of SOP, however, was pivotal to the application of nebulization during emergencies. If SOP were in place,76.9% of the responders used aerosol treatment compared to 23.1% when there were none. The perceived safety when using nebulization during emergencies was also significantly higher (p = 0.013) when SOP were implemented.

Conclusion

The exclusive use of mesh nebulizers could standardize the treatment of emergency patients in the south German rescue services. The use of mesh devices might possibly improve patient outcomes, even if clinical studies are still lacking. Nebulizer treatment differs between the federal states. A comprehensive implementation of SOP for nebulization treatment might support this process and could increase the application frequency and the perceived safety of nebulization during emergencies. A better training of paramedic personnel could improve the knowledge of aerosols as a treatment option for emergency patients and help to classify the advantages and disadvantages of the different aerosol generators available.

SUBMITTER: Otto M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8218572 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHelicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) are an expensive resource that should be utilised efficiently to optimise the cost-benefit ratio. This is especially true in resource-limited settings, such as South Africa. This may be achieved by implementing call-out criteria that are most appropriate to the healthcare system in which HEMS operate. Currently, there are no published evidence-based HEMS call-out criteria developed for South Africa. By identifying patients that are most likely to benefit from HEMS, their utilisation can be enhanced and adjusted to ensure optimal patient outcome. We aimed to systematically utilise expert opinions to reach consensus on HEMS call-out criteria that are contextual to the South African setting.MethodsA modified Delphi technique was used to develop call-out criteria, using current literature as the basis of the study. Purposive, snowball sampling was employed to identify a sample of 118 participants locally and internationally, of which 42 participated for all three rounds. Using an online survey platform, binary agreement/disagreement with each criterion was sought. Acceptable consensus was set at 75%. Statements were sent out in the third round ascertaining whether participants agreed with the analysis of the first two rounds.ResultsAfter two rounds, consensus was obtained for 63% (36/57) of criteria, while 64% of generated statements received consensus in the third round. Results emphasised the opinion that HEMS dispatch criteria relating to patient condition and incident locations were preferential to a comprehensive list. Through collation of these results and international literature, we present an initial concept for a South African HEMS Activation Screen (SAHAS), favouring inquiry on a case-by-case basis.DiscussionThe combination of existing literature and participant opinions, established that call-out criteria are most efficient when based on clinical parameters and geographic considerations, as opposed to a specified list of criteria. The initial concept of our SAHAS should be investigated further.