Multimedialna platforma wiedzy medycznej Internetowa Księgarnia Medyczna Kalendarium Konferencji
Disaster and Emergency Medicine Journal
MENU
Shortcuts Submit an article Author Guidelines Reviewers 2023 Focus and Scope

open access

Ahead of Print
Research paper
Published online: 2023-12-22
View PDF Download PDF file
Get Citation

ATTITUDES OF PREHOSPITAL EMERGENCY HEALTH CARE WORKERS TOWARDS SPINAL CORD IMMOBILIZATION IN PATIENTS WITH MULTIPLE TRAUMA

Lütfi Mert Güler1, Ali Ekşi1, Süreyya Gümüşsoy1, Sevgi Öztürk Günay1
DOI: 10.5603/demj.95409
Affiliations
  1. Health Sciences Institute, Ege University, İzmir, Türkiye, Türkiye

open access

Ahead of Print
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Published online: 2023-12-22

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the attitudes of prehospital emergency health care workers towards spinal cord immobilization in trauma patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a descriptive study, and its participants were 407 pre-hospital emergency healthcare workers working in a province in the west of the country between April 2022 and October 2022. The data were collected online with a questionnaire consisting of twenty-four questions. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value of 0.05 for all analyses. RESULTS: 73% of the participants that they decided to perform routine spinal cord immobilization in all trauma patients regardless of the clinical findings. 85% of the participants said they generally preferred the backboard for spinal cord immobilization of trauma-injured people. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that prehospital emergency health care workers stated that they routinely perform spinal cord immobilization in every traumatized patient, despite knowing the indication for spinal cord immobilization of trauma patients.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the attitudes of prehospital emergency health care workers towards spinal cord immobilization in trauma patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a descriptive study, and its participants were 407 pre-hospital emergency healthcare workers working in a province in the west of the country between April 2022 and October 2022. The data were collected online with a questionnaire consisting of twenty-four questions. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value of 0.05 for all analyses. RESULTS: 73% of the participants that they decided to perform routine spinal cord immobilization in all trauma patients regardless of the clinical findings. 85% of the participants said they generally preferred the backboard for spinal cord immobilization of trauma-injured people. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that prehospital emergency health care workers stated that they routinely perform spinal cord immobilization in every traumatized patient, despite knowing the indication for spinal cord immobilization of trauma patients.

Full Text:

View PDF Download PDF file
Get Citation

Keywords

backboard; paramedic; spinal cord; trauma; vacuum stretcher

About this article
Title

ATTITUDES OF PREHOSPITAL EMERGENCY HEALTH CARE WORKERS TOWARDS SPINAL CORD IMMOBILIZATION IN PATIENTS WITH MULTIPLE TRAUMA

Journal

Disaster and Emergency Medicine Journal

Issue

Ahead of Print

Article type

Research paper

Published online

2023-12-22

Page views

118

Article views/downloads

83

DOI

10.5603/demj.95409

Keywords

backboard
paramedic
spinal cord
trauma
vacuum stretcher

Authors

Lütfi Mert Güler
Ali Ekşi
Süreyya Gümüşsoy
Sevgi Öztürk Günay

References (33)
  1. Cameron AP, Kna JB, Teeter W. Trauma in adults. In: Tintinalli JE, et al. ed. Tintinalli’s emergency medicine: a comprehensive study guide. McGraw Hill Education 2020: 1669–1762.
  2. Yıldırım SA. General aroach to trauma cases. In: Ekşi A, Gümüşsoy S. ed. Trauma book in pre-hosital emergency health service. EMA Tıp Kitapevi, Istanbul 2020: 3–22.
  3. Turkish Statistical Institute. Cause of Death Statistics. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=saglik-ve-sosyal-koruma-101&dil=1 (19.01.2023).
  4. Sarı A. Retrospective evaluation of sociodemographic characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients applying to pamukkale university faculty of medicine hospital emergency department by 112 ambulance. 2020. http://acikerisim.pau.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/11499/35293 (19.01.2023).
  5. Alizadeh A, Dyck SM, Karimi-Abdolrezaee S. Traumatic spinal cord injury: an overview of pathophysiology, models and acute injury mechanisms. Front Neurol. 2019; 10: 282.
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. Hagan M, Feler J, Sun F, et al. Spinal cord injury in adult and pediatric populations. Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery. 2022; 29: 101594.
    CrossRef
  7. Galeiras Vázquez R, Ferreiro Velasco ME, Mourelo Fariña M, et al. Update on traumatic acute spinal cord injury. Part 1. Med Intensiva. 2017; 41(4): 237–247.
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. Kondapalli S, Parikh P, Repas S, et al. Benchmarking performance in emergency medical services for improving trauma care: A data driven approach. Inform Med Unlocked. 2022; 29: 100882.
    CrossRef
  9. Paksoy VM. Comparison of international practice models in emergency health care: anglo-american and franco-german model. Journal Of Vocational School Of Health Service. 2016. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/inonusaglik/issue/26767/410372 (16.01.2023).
  10. Middleton PM, Davies SR, Anand S, et al. The pre-hospital epidemiology and management of spinal cord injuries in New South Wales: 2004–2008. Injury. 2012; 43(4): 480–485.
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. Geduld C, Muller H, Saunders CJ. Factors which affect the application and implementation of a spinal motion restriction protocol by prehospital providers in a low resource setting: A scoping review. Afr J Emerg Med. 2022; 12(4): 393–405.
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. Kaba H. Stabilization of the patient with spinal trauma. In: Ekşi A, Gümüşsoy S. ed. Trauma book in pre-hospital emergency health service. EMA Tıp Kitapevi, Istanbul 2020: 349–366.
  13. White CC, Domeier RM, Millin MG, et al. EMS spinal precautions and the use of the long backboard - resource document to the position statement of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014; 18(2): 306–314.
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. Fischer PE, Perina DG, Delbridge TR, et al. Spinal motion restriction in the trauma patient — a joint position statement. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2018; 22(6): 659–661.
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. Purvis TA, Carlin B, Driscoll P. The definite risks and questionable benefits of liberal pre-hospital spinal immobilisation. Am J Emerg Med. 2017; 35(6): 860–866.
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. Mahshidfar B, Mofidi M, Yari AR, et al. Long backboard versus vacuum mattress splint to immobilize whole spine in trauma victims in the field: a randomized clinical trial. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013; 28(5): 462–465.
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. Jones Rhodes W, Steinbruner D, Finck L, et al. Community implementation of a prehospital spinal immobilization guideline. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2016; 20(6): 792–797.
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. Barney R, Cordell w, Miller E. Pain associated with i̇mmobilization on rigid spine boards. Ann Emergy Med. 1989; 18(9): 918.
  19. Lerner EB, Billittier AJ, Moscati RM. The effects of neutral positioning with and without padding on spinal immobilization of healthy subjects. Prehosp Emerg Care. 1998; 2(2): 112–116.
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. Berg G, Nyberg S, Harrison P, et al. Near-infrared spectroscopy measurement of sacral tissue oxygen saturation in healthy volunteers immobilized on rigid spine boards. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010; 14(4): 419–424.
    CrossRefPubMed
  21. Milland K, Al-Dhahir MA. EMS long spine board immobilization. StatPearls. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK567763/ (22.01.2023).
  22. Pernik MN, Seidel HH, Blalock RE, et al. Comparison of tissue-interface pressure in healthy subjects lying on two trauma splinting devices: the vacuum mattress splint and long spine board. Injury. 2016; 47(8): 1801–1805.
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. Cross DA, Baskerville J. Comparison of perceived pain with different immobilization techniques. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2001; 5(3): 270–274.
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. Rahmatalla S, DeShaw J, Stilley J, et al. Comparing the efficacy of methods for immobilizing the thoracic-lumbar spine. Air Med J. 2018; 37(3): 178–185.
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. Wampler DA, Pineda C, Polk J, et al. The long spine board does not reduce lateral motion during transport — a randomized healthy volunteer crossover trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2016; 34(4): 717–721.
    CrossRefPubMed
  26. Johnson DR, Hauswald M, Stockhoff C. Comparison of a vacuum splint device to a rigid backboard for spinal immobilization. Am J Emerg Med. 1996; 14(4): 369–372.
    CrossRefPubMed
  27. Quinn RH, Williams J, Bennett BL, et al. Wilderness Medical Society. Wilderness Medical Society practice guidelines for spine immobilization in the austere environment: 2014 update. Wilderness Environ Med. 2014; 25(4 Suppl): S105–S117.
    CrossRefPubMed
  28. Ellerton J, Tomazin I, Brugger H, et al. Immobilization and splinting in mountain rescue. Official recommendations of the International Commission for Mountain Emergency Medicine, ICAR MEDCOM, Intended for Mountain Rescue First Responders, Physicians, and Rescue Organizations. High Altitude Medicine & Biology. 2009; 10(4): 337–342.
    CrossRef
  29. Uzun DD, Jung MK, Weerts J, et al. Remaining cervical spine movement under different immobilization techniques. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2020; 35(4): 382–387.
    CrossRefPubMed
  30. Vaillancourt C, Charette M, Taljaard M, et al. Pragmatic strategy empowering paramedics to assess low-risk trauma patients with the canadian c-spine rule and selectively transport them without immobilization: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020; 9(6): e16966.
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. Bauer D, Kowalski R. Effect of spinal immobilization devices on pulmonary function in the healthy, nonsmoking man. Ann Emerg Med. 1988; 17(9): 915–918.
    CrossRefPubMed
  32. Walsh M, Grant T, Mickey S. Lung function compromised by spinal immobilization. Ann Emerg Med. 1990; 19(5): 615–616.
    CrossRefPubMed
  33. Abram S, Bulstrode C. Routine spinal immobilization in trauma patients: what are the advantages and disadvantages? Surgeon. 2010; 8(4): 218–222.
    CrossRefPubMed

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By VM Media Group sp. z o.o., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl