The Impact of Standing Orders on Medication and Skill Selection, Paramedic Assessment, and Hospital Outcome: A Follow-up Report

Abstract

AbstractIntroduction:A prior report demonstrated a five-minute decrement in scene and total prehospital times in the standing order and limited standing order intervals as compared to control.Methods:The Alameda County Emergency Medical Service (EMS) District studied the impact of standing orders on field times, comparison of paramedic assessments with emergency department diagnoses, field drug use and procedures, and hospital outcome. These variables were studied over three discrete, six-week, time-study intervals, which represented three different levels of base-hospital medical control (control, standing order, and limited standing order).Results:There were no statistically significant differences between the three time-study intervals for the following variables: 1) incidence of prehospital administration of three cardiac arrest drugs; 2) incidence of prehospital administration of no drugs; 3) incidence of performance of endotracheal intubation; 4) incidence of performance of defibrillation; 5) assessment comparison; and 6) hospital outcome. There were statistically significant differences between intervals for incidence of: 1) administration of naloxone; 2) administration of 50% dextrose; 3) intravenous (IV) starts; and 4) paramedic performance of no procedures.Conclusion:Although there are several potential flaws in method, the data suggest that standing orders result in decreased incidence of drug administration and IV starts in non-critical situations without a negative impact on paramedic assessments or hospital outcome.