• P J Donovan, D M Cline, T W Whitley, C Foster, and M Outlaw.
• Department of Emergency Services, Heritage Hospital, Tarboro, North Carolina 27886.
• Ann Emerg Med. 1989 May 1;18(5):495-500.

AbstractBecause the initiation of IV lines by emergency medical technicians-Intermediates (EMT-Is) appeared to delay the patient's transport to the hospital, we undertook a retrospective study of 370 patients to compare prehospital care rendered by EMTs (EMT-A equivalent) and EMT-Is in a rural setting. Our study was limited to acute medical conditions in which protocols called for IV lines (124 patients with chest pain, 122 with acute respiratory distress, 99 with seizures, and only 25 with cardiac arrest) (the cardiac arrest cases were too few for statistical significance). We found that the difference in scene times for EMTs and EMT-Is not attempting IV lines was 6.1 and 6.9 minutes, respectively. The average scene time of EMT-Is attempting an IV line was 19.6 minutes (P less than .001) compared with EMT times, or times for EMT-Is not attempting an IV line. One hundred twenty-eight of 370 patients received IV medication within ten minutes of arrival in the emergency department, and ten of these patients had their IV lines initiated successfully in the field. Thirty-nine percent of patients with ED IV lines received IV medication within ten minutes of arrival, while only 21% of patients with a field IV line received medication in this period (P less than .05). We conclude that initiating a field IV line in this specific patient population significantly increased scene time and did not improve the chances of these patients receiving IV medication within ten minutes of arrival in the emergency department.

20 keywords...

hide…