The prehospital emergency medical service system in Korea: its current status and future direction

Utstein-style guidelines contribute to improved public health internationally by providing a structured framework with which to compare emergency medical services systems. Advances in resuscitation science, new insights into important predictors of outcome from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and lessons learned from methodological research prompted this review and update of the 2004 Utstein guidelines. Representatives of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation developed an updated Utstein reporting framework iteratively by meeting face to face, by teleconference, and by Web survey during 2012 through 2014. Herein are recommendations for reporting out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Data elements were grouped by system factors, dispatch/recognition, patient variables, resuscitation/postresuscitation processes, and outcomes. Elements were classified as core or supplemental using a modified Delphi process primarily based on respondents' assessment of the evidence-based importance of capturing those elements, tempered by the challenges to collect them. New or modified elements reflected consensus on the need to account for emergency medical services system factors, increasing availability of automated external defibrillators, data collection processes, epidemiology trends, increasing use of dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, emerging field treatments, postresuscitation care, prognostication tools, and trends in organ recovery. A standard reporting template is recommended to promote standardized reporting. This template facilitates reporting of the bystander-witnessed, shockable rhythm as a measure of emergency medical services system efficacy and all emergency medical services system-treated arrests as a measure of system effectiveness. Several additional important subgroups are identified that enable an estimate of the specific contribution of rhythm and bystander actions that are key determinants of outcome.

The Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS) is a 3-item scale based on a simplification of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Stroke Scale. When performed by a physician, it has a high sensitivity and specificity in identifying patients with stroke who are candidates for thrombolysis. The objective of this study was to validate and verify the reproducibility of the CPSS when used by prehospital providers. The CPSS was performed and scored by a physician certified in the use of the NIH Stroke Scale (gold standard). Simultaneously, a group of 4 paramedics and EMTs scored the same patient. A total of 860 scales were completed on a convenience sample of 171 patients from the emergency department and neurology inpatient service. Of these patients, 49 had a diagnosis of stroke or transient ischemic attack. High reproducibility was observed among prehospital providers for total score (intraclass correlation coefficient [rI],.89; 95% confidence interval [CI],.87 to.92) and for each scale item: arm weakness, speech, and facial droop (.91,.84, and.75, respectively). There was excellent intraclass correlation between the physician and the prehospital providers for total score (rI,.92; 95% CI,.89 to.93) and for the specific items of the scale (.91,.87, and.78, respectively). Observation by the physician of an abnormality in any 1 of the 3 stroke scale items had a sensitivity of 66% and specificity of 87% in identifying a stroke patient. The sensitivity was 88% for identification of patients with anterior circulation strokes. The CPSS has excellent reproducibility among prehospital personnel and physicians. It has good validity in identifying patients with stroke who are candidates for thrombolytic therapy, especially those with anterior circulation stroke.

In the United States, injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1-44 years. In 2008, approximately 30 million injuries were serious enough to require the injured person to visit a hospital emergency department (ED); 5.4 million (18%) of these injured patients were transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). On arrival at the scene of an injury, the EMS provider must determine the severity of injury, initiate management of the patient's injuries, and decide the most appropriate destination hospital for the individual patient. These destination decisions are made through a process known as "field triage," which involves an assessment not only of the physiology and anatomy of injury but also of the mechanism of the injury and special patient and system considerations. Since 1986, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) has provided guidance for the field triage process through its "Field Triage Decision Scheme." This guidance was updated with each version of the decision scheme (published in 1986, 1990, 1993, and 1999). In 2005, CDC, with financial support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, collaborated with ACS-COT to convene the initial meetings of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage (the Panel) to revise the decision scheme; the revised version was published in 2006 by ACS-COT (American College of Surgeons. Resources for the optimal care of the injured patient: 2006. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2006). In 2009, CDC published a detailed description of the scientific rationale for revising the field triage criteria (CDC. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage. MMWR 2009;58[No. RR-1]). In 2011, CDC reconvened the Panel to review the 2006 Guidelines in the context of recently published literature, assess the experiences of states and local communities working to implement the Guidelines, and recommend any needed changes or modifications to the Guidelines. This report describes the dissemination and impact of the 2006 Guidelines; outlines the methodology used by the Panel for its 2011 review; explains the revisions and modifications to the physiologic, anatomic, mechanism-of-injury, and special considerations criteria; updates the schematic of the 2006 Guidelines; and provides the rationale used by the Panel for these changes. This report is intended to help prehospital-care providers in their daily duties recognize individual injured patients who are most likely to benefit from specialized trauma center resources and is not intended as a mass casualty or disaster triage tool. The Panel anticipates a review of these Guidelines approximately every 5 years.