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

Paula Hofstetter; Hanna Schröder; Stefan K Beckers; Christina Borgs; Rolf Rossaint; Marc Felzen

doi:10.2147/OAEM.S386650

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

Open Access Emerg Med. 2023 May 8:15:145-155. doi: 10.2147/OAEM.S386650. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Paula Hofstetter^{1

2}, Hanna Schröder^{1

3}, Stefan K Beckers^{1

3

4}, Christina Borgs¹, Rolf Rossaint¹, Marc Felzen^{1

3

4}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
² Department of Anesthesiology, Rhein-Maas Klinikum, Würselen, Germany.
³ Aachen Institute for Rescue Management & Public Safety, City of Aachen and University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
⁴ Medical Direction of Aachen Fire Department, Aachen, Germany.

Abstract

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

Keywords: Canadian C-spine rule; NEXUS-criteria; emergency medicine; immobilization; tele-emergency medicine; trauma.

Grants and funding

The present study did not receive any external funding.