The Prevalence and Utilization of Prehospital IV Access in Critically Ill Patients in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the pivotality of emergency medical services (EMS) in prehospital care for patient stabilization, prehospital intravenous (IV) access, a standard practice, remains an ambiguity in Saudi Arabia in terms of its prevalence of placement, justification, and utilization. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we aim to estimate the prevalence and utilization rate of prehospital IV access placement in patients transported to King Khalid University Hospital (KKUH) Emergency Medicine Department in Riyadh by EMS and determine the relationship between the prevalence and utilization rate of prehospital IV access in Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) levels 1 and 2 in trauma and non-trauma patients. METHODS: This observational cross-sectional study was conducted over six months. A total of 181 cases of CTAS levels 1 and 2 adult patients were included. Data were collected by trained nurses using convenient sampling through an author-developed questionnaire. RESULTS: The prevalence of prehospital IV line placement was 28.7%, with a utilization rate of 50%, and was notably higher among CTAS level 1 cases (69.2%). Additionally, trauma cases had a higher prevalence of prehospital IV access (53.5%) compared to medical cases (odds ratio (OR): 4.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.73, 4.73, p<0.05). Among patients with prehospital IV lines, the majority (92.3%) were patent and functional. Upon arrival, 73.1% of patients had their prehospital IV line replaced, with hospital protocol being the most common reason for the replacement (73.7%). CONCLUSION: A minority of the patients had prehospital vascular access, and of those, half remained unused. Trauma cases and CTAS level 1 patients had a higher prevalence and utilization of prehospital IV access. Furthermore, trauma cases were more associated with prehospital IV access establishment and utilization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".