Skip to content


Street Lessons #3 Know Thy Patient

3 comments

Ahh, the simplest things.  You need the patient’s name, date of birth,  and social security number if possible.  The name is most important.  If the name is John Smith or Juan Martinez, the date of birth helps.

I was a brand new spanking EMT and we had a patient in classic CHF — I am talking hypertensive through the roof, bulging jugular veins, filling emesis basins with pinky frothy sputum.  We had him on a nonrebreather, on a stair chair, out to the ambulance, and lights and sirens half way to the hospital before we realized we didn’t who he was, and he was still working at breathing too hard to get a syllable out.  No name, no DOB, no social, just the address we picked him up at.  Chalk that one up to two excited rookies.

On most calls, if you leave the house without the patient’s name, this is no problem, the patient can tell you.  In the past, I didn’t often bother with this information if the patient was talking to me.  I figured I could get it out in the ambulance.  I look at the elderly patient and say  “You know your date of birth and social security number?”   The patient looks me right in the eye and says “yes, sir.”  Very good.

On the way to the hospital, after I have done an IV and 12-lead, I ask the patient for his date of birth.  “Yes, sir!”  he says.  Same answer to social security number.  I ask him his name.  “Yes, sir!”

Always get the name and social.

I am in the nursing home and the nurse hands me the envelope.  I take a quick look at it to see if there is a name, date of birth and social security number filled in on the paperwork and that I can read it.  Check.  Check.  The patient is unresponsive.  Out in the ambulance, I am checking the patient’s meds to see if they provide a clue to their condition.  I notice then that patient’s name is Mary Wilson.  The problem is the patient is a man.  I send the paperwork back into the SNF with my partner who comes out with an apology and the paperwork for Richard Johnson.

Here’s one.  Nursing home patient is unresponsive.  Ambulance crew takes patient and paperwork.  Patient’s blood sugar turns out to be 29, but he is not a diabetic.  They give him D50, and he comes around, but is still somewhat confused.  At the hospital they keep him overnight to do tests and figure out why he dumped his sugar considering he is not a diabetic.  Plus he is still confused.  He won’t answer to his name.  Later that night, the hospital gets a call from the nursing home to check on the patient.  Who?  The hospital says, we have no one by that name here.  Later the hospital calls the nursing home back.  We do have someone here from your facility named Edward Thomas.  Ahh, no you don’t.  Edward is right here next to me in his wheelchair.  Whoops.  No wonder the man in the hospital bed won’t answer to his name.  Turns out the patient is a diabetic after all.

You have to check the name.  If the patient can’t confirm it, check for a name bracelet.  No bracelet?  Get a nurse to verify the patient and paperwork are one and the same.

You’d think it would be easy, but it’s not.  The times I’ve been on calls and had a first responder hand me a piece of paper with the patient’s name and information on it, and its been the first responder’s previous patient, and not this current one.  The times it has been the right patient and I have put the paper in my right pocket, but then pulled a piece of paper out of my left pocket and started typing in the name on the left pocket piece of paper.  Not the  patient in front of me.

I try hard now.  I introduce myself to the patient and get the patient’s name or get someone to tell me the patient’s name.  Mistaken identity can lead to serious errors, and those we always want to avoid.

Street Lessons #2 Troubleshooting the Monitor

7 comments

In paramedic school, you are taught to apply your cardiac monitor to patients having chest pain as well as a variety of other aliments.  Simple enough.  If your teacher hasn’t told you, then your preceptor should be grilling it into you to always bring your monitor in to each call, as well as your house bag.  Some might say you should also be bringing in your suction –anything you might need.  You never know what you are walking into.  But in this post we are going to just talk about the cardiac monitor, and we are going to assume you have it with you.  (At least in cases A-D). Here’s where the problems begin.

Problem A 

Both batteries are dead.  You checked them this morning and you swear they both had four bars.  Now the monitor is either completely dead or the batteries are both down to one and flashing that they need to be changed, and then they go dead.  What happened?  Well, you thought you turned the monitor off after you checked it at the start of your shift, but you didn’t, and all this time the machine has been sucking the batteries down.  I can tell you I have on several occasions been driving to a cardiac arrest and just before I arrived, heard a sudden beeping from the back and the voice saying “Change monitor batteries.”  What do you do?  If you are still in the truck when the battery is beeping, you change the batteries out.  Simple enough.  But let’s say they are both dead and you don’t notice until you are in the house.  You take the spare battery out of the back.  How do you know you have a spare battery?  Because this has happened to you before, so you always keep a spare battery in the back now.  Always.

Problem B

The batteries are good, but when you attach the electrodes, nothing reads on the screen.  You recheck the leads and connection to the monitor, which you unplug and then replug several times, all with no change.  Still nothing.  You take the electrodes off and apply some new ones from the same open bag, and still nothing.  You blame the monitor.  Is it the monitor?  No, some of you may have guessed from your experience or from what I have written that reveals the clue.  The problem is the electrodes are from an open bag and they are dried out.  You were smart enough to switch electrodes, but you took the new ones out of the same open bag.  Try to always get your electrodes from a fresh pack, or at least keep a spare fresh pack in case you have this problem.  I know some medics like to preattach their electrodes, which is okay if you are very busy, but know this — from the moment you take them out of the bag, they start to dry out, and the drier they are, the worse the ECG quality will be until you get nothing at all.

Problem C

You need to do a 12-Lead.  Whoops, you have the regular cable, but the 12-lead attachment cable is missing.  It fell out and no one noticed or you forgot to check carefully this morning.  Either way, all you have is the four leads and your patient is having crushing pain and is cool, clammy and diaphoretic.  What do you do?  A modified 9-Lead.  This is how we did 12-leads before we had Life-Pack 12s.  Take the left leg lead — the red lead, and move it to the V1 position.  Run Lead III in diagnostic mode.  Repeat with V2, V3, V4, V5 and V6.  Label each lead as follows:  McL (modified chest Lead)1, McL2, McL3, etc…  While not exact replicas, they do passably well.  You do this and see hyperacute T waves in McL3 and McL4 and McL5.  Call in a STEMI Alert.

Problem D

This time you have your 12-Lead cables, but that is all you have.  You don’t have the four lead cables and without those, you can’t attach the 12-Lead cables.  Your patient is alert, but very clammy and you can’t feel a pulse.  What do you do?  Take out the defib pads, and apply them to the chest.  Hit paddles on the monitor and while you won’t be able to get a 12-lead, at least you know the rythmn and if it happens to be VT, you are all set.  If if is an SVT, and you want to give adenosine, go ahead, just be certain to hit print.  If it is a sinus, well at least you know that.

Problem E

Okay, so this time you are dispatched to a chest pain call and when you go to grab your monitor, there is no monitor.  D’oh!  What happened?  Who knows, but we could assume what happened to you is what happened to me as chronicled in the post D’oh!  I was lucky enough that my call was not a chest pain, but a BLS call.  Had it been a chest pain, I would have had no choice but to fall back on my BLS skills and call for a paramedic intercept.  Even if I was revealing my lapse and subjecting myself to punishment, you can’t let the patient be harmed.  Go ahead and call for a medic, and hope that your company and or medical control is lenient with you.

 

 

Street Lessons

15 comments

I am introducing a new series. I am calling it Street Lessons, but I could just as well call it any of the following:

Things They Didn’t Teach Me in Paramedic School

Things They Might have Taught Me in Paramedic School, but I Was on a Bathroom Break.

Oh Shit!

Things I Learned The Hard Way

Trial and Error

Eureka! or Light Bulb Moments

***

Street Lesson # 1

Don’t Carry Hypotensive Patients in a Stair Chair

Over the years, I have had five patients go into cardiac arrest while I carried them in a stair chair. What does that tell me? It could mean that I carry a lot of patients in stair chairs. It could mean there are not very many elevators in the city I work in. It could mean I have done a ton of calls in my twenty plus years in the field. All would be true. And I can say I have never had an ambulatory patient go into cardiac arrest on me — at least not while I have been ambulating them. My first words to my partner on arriving at patient bedside are usually, “Get the stair chair.” The old saying “ABCs – Ambulate Before Carry” – it is not in my book of sayings.

Still five patients coding on the stair chair seems like a lot — certainly enough for me to wonder whether their coding was in any way related to their being on the stair chair.

So why might they code on a stair chair?

They are sick and dying and called 911, and if we hadn’t arrived as soon as we did, they would have gone into cardiac arrest at that precise moment anyway.

They are sick and dying and the fact that they were being carried down steep creaky stairs scared the last bit of life out of them.

Or maybe they were hypotensive and when we sat them up, their weak hearts couldn’t compensate, and that little extra bit of stress was enough to push them into the void.

I cannot remember the details of all five cases. But I can remember each of them dropping their head back or dropping it forward in a manner that indicated they no longer had muscle control. Sometimes they took a last gasp or two, sometimes not. I am a big believer in working a cardiac arrest right where they code, not losing a precious second in poor or absent CPR. Still it is hard to just stop carrying someone mid-stair case and start rescusitation.

“You know what just happened?” I will say to my partner.

“What?

“The patient just coded.”

So what is the lesson in all of this (Besides, expect if you do enough calls and carry enough people some will code on the stair chair)?

My lesson is — if the patient is hypotensive while supine or borderline hypotensive and they are sick, consider carrying them in a scoop stretcher.

A 20-year-old with a pressure of 80 due to vomiting may be less at risk that an 80-year-old cancer patient with altered mental status, tachycardia and a pressure of 100. If a patient gets dizzy sitting up, then don’t use the stair chair. It may not spare you having them arrest on you during extrication, but it will be less likely to cause harm.

Computer STEMI Interpretation Revisisted

2 comments

Last week, I spent a fascinating hour and a half with two members of Physio-Control’s technical team going over the 12-Leads I discussed in a recent post. I was extremely impressed with their knowledge, their desire to improve the computer’s algorithms, and their commitment to patient care.

I went back over each of the charts to determine the discharge diagnoses of each case and any other relevant data, and was also able at their suggestion to obtain the 12-lead’s PCO file, which is available through CODE-Stat software, that provides a far more detailed look at what the computer is actually seeing when it makes its call. Unfortunately, I only had access to the PCO files to the most recent third of the transmissions.

From the original 58 transmissions, I excluded 9 -12-leads due to the following reasons, 3-patients went to other hospitals and had unconfirmable diagnoses, 3-12-leads from 1 patient who was a patient 4 times (all 4 times, his 12-lead triggered a false Acute MI reading), 1 patient who was a DNR and may not have been considered for the cath lab, 1 -12 lead from a patient who had a second 12-lead recorded several minutes later, but who had been listed as two separate patients, and one due to clear arm lead reversal that was later corrected in untransmitted 12-leads. I also recategorized one of the missed STEMIs as a confirmed STEMI when the PCO file revealed, all arm motion in the transmitted ECG and all three subsequent, but nontransmitted ECGs correctly called the ECG as a STEMI. And I recategorized another inappropriately labeled STEMI as a correct STEMI when I discovered a coding area in the chart.

So here then is the revised bottom line:

49 Transmitted ECGs (49 Patients that were either machine called STEMIs or clinical STEMIs not called by the machine. Patients who had nondiagnostic 12-leads were excluded).

Of the 42 called STEMI by the machine, 21 went to cath lab (50%), 19 were classified STEMI (45%), two had clean arteries.

23 ECGS incorrectly called STEMI (55%), 21 that did not go to cath lab (50%).

Of the 26 confirmed clinical STEMIs in the batch, 7 were missed by the machine interpretation (27%). The machine correctly captured captured 19 (73%).

If this small back of the envelope sample holds true, then you could say the computer will identify 73% of STEMIs, but miss 27%.

Likewise, if it were to hold true, if the machine does call a 12-lead a STEMI, there is a 50% chance they will go to the cath lab, and a 45% chance that it is actually a STEMI.

These are better figures than what I first reported, but still concerning if the computer interpretation’s limitations are not properly understood and accounted for in patient care algorithms.

Had we been able to view the PCO files from all the 12-leads, other small adjustments may have been made.

Keep in mind that this was not a rigorous scientific study. Such a study could and should be done, preferably at an institution with a high volume of transmitted ECGs.

That aside, here then are the lessons we should take from this.

1. Systems that require the computer to interpret the 12-Lead as a STEMI for activation put patients at risk. If the computer interpretation alone buys you a trip to the cath lab, some people will be cathed unneccessarily.

Also, if you can only preactivate the cath lab if the machine calls it a STEMI, many people having obvious STEMIs will have their care delayed.

2. The machine is only as good as the quality of the data. Failure to put the electrodes in the right place, to see that they are well affixed and that patient is not moving can lead to a false reading.

The fact that many paramedics I have talked to, have recognized this, and then redone a 12-lead suggests an even higher computer miscall rate, but it also suggests that vigilance to this, and perhaps requiring a 2nd 12-lead of high data quality, might lower the miscall rate substantially.

Paramedics should be very careful when acquiring 12-leads and if they distrust the result, should consider getting a 2nd 12-lead of higher quality after trouble-shooting any movement issues. Systems likewise should consider the 12-lead they are receiving may not reflect pristine positioning and lack of movement and may be treated with some skepticism.

3. There are two well defined examples that appear to mislead the machine – aflutter (which has been recognized by Tom Bouthillet at EMS 12-Lead and hyperactute T waves in the anterior leads. Of the 7 missed STEMIs in this small survey 5 had hyperactute T waves in the anterior leads. Of the 23 inaccurately called STEMIs, 4 had atrial flutter as an underlying rhythm.

Here are some examples of some of the hyperacute T wave misses.

4. Physio-control is committed to providing the best product possible. They will be sending many of the PCO files I shared with them to Glascow, which produces the algorithm, for analysis.

5. Ultimately, no computer will be perfect. The software should always just be used as an adjunct, a valuable adjunct, but not a requirement replacing human consideration.

On a final note, I think EMS has an obligation to do more than complain about the computer error. We should

a. Insisit on proper ECG placement and data quality
b. Identify patterns of errors and share this information with the developers of the algorithms so they can improve on them for our mutual goal of improved patient care and outcomes.

To Transmit Or Not

6 comments

In previous posts, I wrote about paramedics’ ability to identify STEMIs and about the computer’s ability to identify STEMIs. My conclusions were that unless 12-lead interpretation is a major and continual focus of paramedic education and qualify assurance, paramedics’ ability to recognize STEMI will not be optimal. While most paramedics can easily identify an inferior STEMI, lateral and anterior can at times be more difficult, the lateral because it is often subtler and the anterior because it is often confused by the STEMI mimics. As far as the computer’s interpretation ability, while it can be used as an interpretation assist, and is constantly being improved, I don’t feel it is yet ready for prime-time. The software misses too many STEMIs and inaccurately calls too many nonSTEMIs as STEMIs. While the computer companies are working hard to improve their algorithm, they are just not there yet. Today I address the question of transmitting 12-leads. Should all paramedic services be required to have 12-lead transmission capability?

I admit I have had a small bias against transmission. The services I have worked for have not had the transmission capability (We are getting it very soon). In our area there are three hospitals that allow paramedics to activate the cath lab based on recognition, one that requires transmission for the hospital to preactivate the cath lab. Unless, the patient absolutely insists, I go to the other hospitals because I know I can get the patient to the cath lab quicker because those hospitals will activate in advance of our arrival at the ED based on my interpretation alone. I do also work for a hospital where half the STEMIs that come in are from services that transmit and the other half do not. Our best times are from the service that does not transmit, but just barely.

Transmission is not necessary for the obvious big I can see it from across the room STEMIs if you have a paramedic who can give a good patch and a doctor at the other end willing to trust the interpretation. Two hospitals in our state that have excellent door to balloon times (their medics go right to the cath lab) do not rely on transmission at all. But here is the question I wonder about. If you rely on paramedics alone, are paramedics more apt to only call in the obvious STEMIs? What happens to the patients with the more subtler STEMIs? Are they missed? I would like to see a study asking this question. I wonder about this because we have had an occasional hard time just getting paramedics to call in on obvious STEMIs. In hospitals that have 100% of their services transmitting, do they have fewer missed STEMIs than those hospitals where none of their services transmit? By missed STEMI I mean a STEMI that is not recognized until the hospital that shows the same morphology on the prehospital 12-lead as opposed to the ECG evolving into a STEMI after ED arrival. My guess is that the all transmission system, where paramedics are encouraged to send in borderline 12-Leads capture a greater percentage of STEMIs. But this is just a hypothesis. I await a study for verification.

What do I feel is the ideal system? Here it is:

1. Include 12-lead competency in all paramedic education and QA
2. Encourage medics to consider but not rely on computer interpretation.
3. Tell medics to call in not just definite STEMIs but possible STEMIs. There is no shame in being wrong.
4. Add transmission capability.

With these four components in place, no STEMI should fall through the cracks.