Is It Time to Make Ketamine Your First-Line Analgesic? The Evidence Is Catching Up

Published March 2, 2026 | 9 min read

 

For most of EMS history, pain management in the field has been the domain of opioids. Morphine. Fentanyl. Start a line, push the drug, document the response, move on. The system worked until it didn’t. Between opioid diversion, respiratory depression in already-compromised trauma patients, and a growing opioid epidemic that EMS helped fuel one morphine push at a time, the field has been quietly searching for a better answer.

That answer has been sitting in paramedic drug bags for years. And the research to back it up has finally arrived.

Ketamine, the dissociative anesthetic that has been used in operating rooms, on battlefields, and in emergency departments for decades, is now at the center of a wave of prehospital research that is challenging everything we thought we knew about how paramedics should manage acute pain in trauma. The question is no longer whether ketamine works in the field. The question is why it isn’t being used more.

What the Latest Research Actually Says

The most significant piece of evidence to land in recent years is the PACKMaN trial, or Paramedic Analgesia Comparing Ketamine and Morphine in Trauma, a randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 clinical trial published in The Lancet Regional Health: Europe in April 2025.

This is not another observational study. This is the first fully blinded, randomized trial comparing prehospital ketamine to morphine administered by paramedics for severe traumatic pain. Participants had to report a pain score of 7 or higher on a 0-10 numeric rating scale and, in the attending paramedic’s clinical judgment, would normally require parenteral morphine. Patients receiving ketamine were managed with routine monitoring: no end-tidal CO2, no two-clinician airway requirement, and the same basic setup most ALS units run every day.

The findings confirmed what observational data had been suggesting for years: ketamine is not inferior to morphine for prehospital trauma analgesia, and it demonstrated a favorable side-effect profile in a real-world paramedic-led environment. Importantly, patients did not experience an increased rate of adverse events despite operating under a lower monitoring standard than previous physician-led studies had used.

The Lancet research team’s own literature review, conducted through January 2025, identified 6 randomized trials, 22 observational studies, and 4 systematic reviews on ketamine versus other agents in the emergency setting. Across those 22 observational studies, the conclusion was that ketamine performs as well as or better than morphine, while the 4 systematic reviews found ketamine to be at least as effective with fewer concerning side effects.

That’s a robust body of evidence. And it keeps growing.

Why Morphine Has Always Been a Compromise

To understand why ketamine matters, you have to understand why morphine has always been a flawed default.

Morphine lowers blood pressure. In a trauma patient who may be bleeding, even occultly, that’s not a neutral pharmacological event. It depresses respiration. In a patient with chest trauma, rib fractures, or a compromised airway, that’s a problem you’re adding to the call, not solving. And it carries a real risk of dependency. You’re delivering an opioid to a patient who may be predisposed, who is in acute distress, and who will likely receive more opioids in the ED and during any surgical intervention. You’re contributing to a pipeline, and EMS has known this for years.

JEMS has covered prehospital pain management extensively, noting that while opioids remain the most commonly administered strong analgesics by paramedics, their side-effect profile and the scope of the opioid epidemic have created genuine pressure to find alternatives. Ketamine, one JEMS overview noted, is a drug with over 60 years of clinical history, synthesized in 1962, that has been used across veterinary medicine, operating rooms, battlefield hospitals, and emergency departments, and that brings a remarkably broad therapeutic window to the table.

The pharmacology is the key. At sub-dissociative doses, roughly 0.1 to 0.5 mg/kg IV, ketamine blocks NMDA receptors to blunt pain perception without producing full dissociation. It maintains airway reflexes. It doesn’t drop blood pressure; its sympathomimetic properties tend to support it. It works fast. And because it doesn’t hit the same receptor pathways as opioids, it sidesteps the respiratory depression concern that makes every morphine push in a compromised patient a calculated risk.

The Route Question: IV, IM, IN, or Nebulized?

One of the most practical shifts in prehospital ketamine use is the expanding discussion around non-IV routes, a development with major implications for field care.

A 2025 retrospective study out of Harris County EMS in Texas, published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, compared fentanyl against ketamine delivered via breath-actuated nebulizer (BAN) across 1,480 patients. In the overall population, there was no statistically significant difference in pain reduction between the two drugs. But in the subgroup of patients with traumatic pain specifically, ketamine via BAN produced significantly greater analgesia than fentanyl, and it required no IV access to deliver.

That last detail matters more than it might seem. IV access in the prehospital environment is not always fast, clean, or simple. A patient with blast injuries, burns, or severe trauma may have no viable peripheral vein. A pediatric patient in pain may require IO access just to get a line. The ability to deliver meaningful analgesia through a nebulizer, with no needle, no line, and no delay, changes the calculus of pain management on a complex scene.

Intranasal ketamine has also been studied in the prehospital context, with the PAIN-K trial (Andolfatto et al., 2019) demonstrating effectiveness via the IN route in adults. And intramuscular ketamine remains widely used, particularly for agitation management, with a faster onset than IV in some presentations due to the ability to deliver a larger bolus quickly.

JEMS has covered the expanding use of these non-IV routes as part of a broader push toward more flexible, patient-centered prehospital analgesia, one that doesn’t make pain relief contingent on IV access.

The Side Effect Conversation: What Paramedics Actually Need to Know

Every time ketamine comes up in protocol discussions, the same concerns surface: emergence phenomena, dysphoria, hallucinations, agitation on the back end. These are real, but they are also contextual, and the research increasingly puts them in perspective.

A 2025 systematic review published in the International Journal of Paramedicine (Barnes and Gander) looked specifically at side effects and adverse events from prehospital ketamine analgesia in trauma. The review found that at sub-dissociative analgesic doses, adverse events are documented but generally mild and self-limiting. The most common side effects, including dizziness, nausea, and dissociative symptoms, occurred at a frequency that was not dramatically different from the opioid comparators, and serious airway complications were rare in the analgesic dosing range.

The PACKMaN trial reinforced this in its real-world paramedic context: patients in the ketamine arm did not experience elevated adverse event rates, even without advanced airway monitoring in place.

There is also an emerging conversation about ketamine’s potential benefits that extend beyond the scene. Research cited in JEMS has noted that prehospital analgesia in trauma has a measurable effect on long-term PTSD outcomes, and that ketamine, in particular, may have an advantage over opioids in reducing post-traumatic stress in non-TBI trauma patients. A 2022 military medicine study found ketamine’s early administration was associated with improved PTSD prognosis in that population. The implications for civilian EMS, where trauma calls are common and long-term patient outcomes are rarely tracked, are worth sitting with.

The one area where caution remains warranted is ketamine for agitation, where the dosing is fundamentally different (dissociative, not analgesic doses), the population is different, and the intubation-rate data is more mixed. Analgesic ketamine and sedative ketamine are not the same clinical conversation. A 2024 study comparing ketamine versus midazolam for acute severe agitation in the prehospital setting, published in the International Journal of Paramedicine, found that while ketamine produced faster and deeper initial sedation, it was also associated with higher re-sedation rates in hospital, likely from re-emergence, and did not outperform midazolam at achieving the target RASS score of -1, 0, or 1. That nuance matters.

What’s Holding Adoption Back?

If the evidence is this strong, why isn’t ketamine on every ALS unit as a first-line analgesic right now?

There are a few honest answers.

Protocol inertia. Medical directors are cautious, and updating standing orders takes time, politics, and sometimes a legal review. Morphine and fentanyl are known quantities. Ketamine still carries a stigma in some systems, as the word “dissociative” makes some administrators nervous, even when the dosing in question is nowhere near dissociative territory.

Training gaps. Ketamine requires paramedics to understand dosing tiers. The analgesic dose (0.1-0.5 mg/kg IV) is meaningfully different from the sedative dose (1-2 mg/kg IV) and the induction dose (>2 mg/kg IV). Getting that dose range wrong in either direction changes the clinical picture significantly. That requires training, and training costs time and money.

Monitoring concerns. Some state protocols and medical directors have historically required EtCO2 monitoring and dual-clinician airway capability for ketamine administration, a standard the PACKMaN trial has now directly challenged by demonstrating safety without those requirements at analgesic doses.

Documentation culture. In some EMS systems, controlled substances require such onerous documentation that providers default to simpler agents. Reducing administrative barriers is as important as updating the drug protocol.

The Practical Takeaway for Paramedics and Medical Directors

If you are a paramedic working in a system that still defaults to morphine or fentanyl as the first-line analgesic for severe traumatic pain, here is what the current evidence supports:

Ketamine at sub-dissociative doses (0.1-0.5 mg/kg IV) is a clinically appropriate, evidence-backed alternative to opioids for prehospital trauma analgesia. It does not require a higher level of airway monitoring than standard ALS care at analgesic doses. Its side-effect profile is comparable to opioids and arguably more favorable in hemodynamically sensitive patients.

For patients without IV access, nebulized ketamine via BAN has demonstrated effectiveness in traumatic pain specifically and represents a practical option that should be in more protocol discussions.

The conversation about ketamine is no longer whether it belongs in EMS. It already does, in systems that have made the evidence-based move. The conversation now is about making that access consistent and protocol-driven across the country, so that the patient with a traumatic femur fracture in rural Oklahoma gets the same quality of prehospital analgesia as the patient in a Houston metro system.

Pain is a vital sign. It deserves a first-line treatment with a 60-year safety record, a growing body of Phase 3 trial evidence, and a pharmacological profile that doesn’t add respiratory compromise to an already injured patient.

That drug is sitting in your drug bag. The research says it’s time to use it more.

Sources & Further Reading

  • Smyth MA, Noordali H, Starr K, et al. “Paramedic Analgesia Comparing Ketamine and Morphine in Trauma (PACKMaN): A Randomised, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial.” The Lancet Regional Health: Europe. Published April 5, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101265. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(25)00057-2/fulltext
  • McArthur R, Cash RE, Anderson J, et al. “Fentanyl versus Nebulized Ketamine for Prehospital Analgesia: A Retrospective Data Review.” American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2025 Mar;89:124-128. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2024.12.033.
  • Barnes L, Gander B. “Side Effects and Adverse Events in Prehospital Ketamine Analgesia for Trauma: A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Paramedicine. No. 12 (Oct-Dec 2025): 141-155. DOI: 10.56068/YVZO4619.
  • Johndro C, Caffyn S, Chen J, et al. “Prehospital Use of Ketamine Versus Midazolam for Sedation in Acute Severe Agitation.” International Journal of Paramedicine. No. 7 (Jul-Sep 2024): 23-30. DOI: 10.56068/RHLT6550.
  • JEMS. “Ketamine Considerations for Prehospital Use.” October 2024. https://www.jems.com/patient-care/ketamine-considerations-for-prehospital-use/
  • JEMS. “Prehospital Pain Management.” https://www.jems.com/ems-management/prehospital-pain-management/
  • JEMS / International Prehospital Medicine Institute. “Literature Review, October 2024.” https://www.jems.com/patient-care/international-prehospital-medicine-institute-literature-review-october-2024/
  • Morgan MM, Perina DG, Acquisto NM, et al. “Ketamine Use in Prehospital and Hospital Treatment of the Acute Trauma Patient: A Joint Position Statement.” Prehospital Emergency Care. 2021;25(4):588-592. DOI: 10.1080/10903127.2020.1801920.

This post is for EMS continuing education and clinical discussion purposes. Always follow your agency’s protocols and the guidance of your medical director.

 

 

/by

Why Waiting Until the Last Minute for NREMT Recertification Is Risky:

NREMT recertification is not something EMS professionals can afford to treat casually. Certification is directly tied to your ability to practice, respond to emergencies, and maintain employment. Yet every cycle, many providers wait until the final weeks before their expiration date to begin the recertification process. 

Waiting until the last minute may feel manageable, but it creates unnecessary risk. From course availability issues to documentation delays and technical problems, procrastinating your National Registry renewal can jeopardize your certification status. Understanding why early action matters can protect your credentials and your career. 

Understanding the NREMT Recertification Process 

The National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians requires EMS providers to complete specific continuing education hours within each recertification cycle. These hours must align with the National Continued Competency Program model, which includes national, local, and individual components. 

Details about certification standards and renewal requirements are outlined by the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians. Providers are responsible for tracking completed hours, ensuring course eligibility, and submitting documentation before the deadline. 

While the process is straightforward on paper, it requires planning. Waiting too long increases the chance of missing required components or discovering gaps too late to fix them comfortably. 

 

Risk 1: Incomplete or Incorrect Documentation 

Recertification is not just about completing hours. It also involves proper documentation and submission. If you wait until the final days, there is little room to correct errors. 

Common issues include missing certificates, courses that do not meet category requirements, and miscalculated hour totals. If you discover a shortfall close to the deadline, you may not have enough time to complete additional approved education. 

Beginning your renewal process early gives you time to review transcripts, confirm course eligibility, and verify that each requirement is satisfied. It also reduces stress during submission. 

Risk 2: Technical Delays and Submission Problems 

Online systems are generally reliable, but no platform is immune to technical issues. Login errors, upload problems, or system slowdowns can occur, especially during high traffic periods close to national deadlines. 

If your certification expires before submission is complete, you could face inactive status. That can impact employment eligibility, shift scheduling, and agency compliance. 

Starting early creates a buffer. Even if a technical issue arises, you have time to resolve it without placing your certification at risk. 

Risk 3: Employment and Credentialing Consequences 

For many EMS professionals, certification status directly affects employment. Agencies require proof of active credentials. If your certification lapses, you may be temporarily removed from duty until reinstatement is processed. 

That interruption can affect income, scheduling, and reputation. Waiting until the last minute increases the probability of a gap between expiration and renewal confirmation. 

Agencies also rely on employees to maintain credentials to protect their own compliance standing. When multiple staff members delay renewal, administrative strain increases across the organization.

Risk 4: Reduced Learning Quality 

Continuing education should strengthen clinical knowledge and reinforce critical thinking. When you rush to complete hours at the deadline, learning becomes transactional rather than meaningful. 

Instead of thoughtfully selecting courses that enhance patient care skills, you may choose whatever meets hour requirements fastest. That approach diminishes the long-term value of continuing education. 

Providers who begin early can choose topics that address skill gaps, expand expertise, or support career advancement. Specialty areas, leadership topics, and focused clinical refreshers are easier to incorporate when you are not racing the clock. 

Expanded learning options across diverse subject areas are available through curated specialty EMS courses, allowing providers to grow beyond minimum requirements. 

Risk 5: Overlooking NREMT Specific Requirements 

Not all continuing education automatically aligns with NREMT standards. The National Continued Competency Program model requires specific distribution of hours across categories. Waiting until the deadline increases the likelihood of misalignment. 

Using education specifically structured for registry renewal reduces confusion. Programs designed to meet registry standards simplify tracking and minimize compliance errors. 

Providers can access renewal-focused education pathways through the dedicated NREMT aligned continuing education section, which supports accurate completion of required components. 

Risk 6: Personal Stress and Burnout 

EMS professionals already work in high-pressure environments. Adding recertification panic to an already demanding schedule can increase stress levels unnecessarily. 

Planning your continuing education across the entire recertification cycle spreads the workload evenly. Completing hours gradually prevents burnout and allows for better retention of information. 

Recertification should reinforce confidence, not create anxiety. A steady approach keeps the process manageable and aligned with your professional goals. 

How Early Planning Strengthens Career Stability

Proactive recertification planning protects your credentials, income, and professional standing. It also demonstrates responsibility to supervisors and agency leadership. 

Agencies that encourage staff to begin renewal early often experience fewer compliance disruptions. Some departments support structured access to continuing education platforms to simplify tracking and encourage early completion. 

Department-wide education programs can streamline renewal planning and provide oversight for multiple providers at once. Structured access models available through organized department training options make it easier for agencies to support their teams consistently. 

A Smarter Approach to NREMT Recertification 

The safest approach to NREMT recertification is simple. Start early. Track your hours consistently. Verify category alignment. Submit documentation with time to spare. CE Solutions provides all inclusive NREMT packages that submit your earned CEU hours to CAPCE where you can sync to your NREMT.

Treat renewal as an ongoing professional responsibility rather than a last-minute task. When education is spaced throughout the certification cycle, it becomes part of your growth instead of a deadline-driven burden.  

How CE Solutions Supports Timely Recertification 

CE Solutions provides structured continuing education pathways aligned with NREMT standards and EMS professional development. Through accessible online learning, providers can complete required hours efficiently while maintaining flexibility around shift schedules. 

With comprehensive EMS course catalogs, NREMT-aligned coursework, specialty education options, and department-level access models, CE Solutions supports EMS professionals who want to stay ahead of renewal deadlines rather than risk last-minute complications. 

NREMT recertification protects your ability to serve. Starting early protects your ability to renew without stress.

 

/by

Rural EMS and Health Equity: Closing the Emergency Care Gap:

When a medical emergency strikes in rural America, the challenges extend far beyond the immediate health crisis. Geographic isolation, limited resources, and systemic barriers create profound disparities in emergency medical services (EMS), disparities that directly determine who lives and who dies.

The Rural EMS Crisis: By the Numbers

Rural communities face unique and measurable obstacles in emergency care delivery. Response times are significantly longer in rural areas, with median EMS response times of 10 minutes in rural counties compared to 7 minutes in urban counties for motor vehicle crashes.[1] For stroke patients, rural transport times are a median of 6.7 minutes longer, a gap that widens to 16 minutes at the 90th percentile.[2] A systematic review confirmed that urban EMS consistently outperforms rural EMS across all prehospital time metrics.[3]

These delays aren’t just inconvenient. They’re deadly:

  • An estimated 2,129 passenger vehicle deaths per year (13.2% of all crash fatalities) might be prevented if rural response times met established benchmarks.[1]
  • Rural patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or trauma have lower survival rates than urban patients.[3]
  • 30-day stroke mortality is 20% higher at rural hospitals (HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.18-1.22), heart failure mortality is 15% higher (HR: 1.15), and myocardial infarction mortality is 10% higher (HR: 1.10).[4]
  • A 2025 meta-analysis confirmed that rural patients with acute MI and heart failure face significantly elevated mortality risk compared to urban counterparts.[5]

Beyond Geography: Systemic Barriers in Rural EMS

The rural healthcare equity gap runs deeper than distance. Only 2.6% of the U.S. population lives in “ambulance deserts,” areas where the geographic center falls outside a 25-minute ambulance service area, but 8.9% of rural residents live in these zones, compared to just 0.3% of urban residents. These areas also correlate with higher area deprivation indices.[6]

Rural EMS agencies face compounding systemic challenges including limited equipment and training, severe workforce shortages with heavy reliance on volunteers, and financial sustainability problems driven by lower call volumes and limited reimbursement.[7]

The Impact of Rural Hospital Closures on EMS

The ongoing closure of rural hospitals makes an already dire situation worse. Since 2013, over 70 rural hospitals have closed in the United States.[8] Each closure increases EMS transport times by an average of 2.6 minutes and total activation time by 7.2 minutes, further delaying definitive care.[9] Rural hospital closures also lead to decreased emergency department and outpatient utilization, raising serious concerns about access to timely care.[8]

That said, rural EDs that remain open demonstrate comparable mortality outcomes to urban facilities for life-threatening conditions like sepsis, stroke, and myocardial infarction when standardized protocols and transfer pathways are in place.[10]

Community Paramedicine: A Proven Solution for Rural Health Equity

Addressing rural EMS disparities requires innovative, evidence-based solutions. Community paramedicine programs show strong promise in improving rural health outcomes by expanding the EMS role beyond emergency response to include preventive care, chronic disease management, and post-discharge follow-up.

A rural community paramedicine program in South Carolina demonstrated that participants reduced ED visits by 58.7% and inpatient visits by 68.8%, while achieving significant improvements in blood pressure control (7.2 mmHg reduction in systolic BP) and blood glucose management (33.7 mmol/L reduction).[11] Broader research confirms that community paramedicine programs result in net reductions in acute healthcare utilization, appear economically viable, and achieve high patient satisfaction.[12][13] Two cost-benefit analyses from Canada and the United States showed positive cost-effectiveness for community paramedicine in rural settings.[14]

Telemedicine Integration in Rural EMS

Telemedicine is another powerful tool for closing the rural emergency care gap. By allowing rural paramedics to consult with specialists in real time, telemedicine brings critical expertise directly to remote locations. Prehospital telemedicine systems have demonstrated improved availability of physician support, with teleconsultation durations decreasing from 12 minutes to 9.4 minutes over time as providers gain experience.[15]

A systematic review found that emergency telehealth in rural and remote EDs achieves improved or equivalent clinical outcomes, appropriate care processes, and favorable service use patterns.[16] Telemedicine platforms also enable Basic Life Support paramedics to provide interventions outside their traditional scope, such as opioid analgesia via physician orders, and facilitate remote diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction through prehospital electrocardiograms.[17]

A Call to Action: Investing in Rural EMS

Health equity means ensuring that where you live doesn’t determine whether you live. Rural EMS sits at the frontline of this challenge, serving as the healthcare safety net for millions of Americans.

Closing the gap requires sustained federal and state investment in rural EMS infrastructure, workforce development, and equipment upgrades. It also requires recognizing rural EMS providers as essential healthcare workers deserving of competitive compensation and professional development opportunities.

By investing in rural EMS systems, expanding community paramedicine programs, integrating telemedicine capabilities, and stabilizing rural hospitals, we can ensure that all communities, regardless of zip code, have access to timely, high-quality emergency care.

The path to health equity runs through rural America. Strengthening rural EMS is an essential step on that journey.

References

[1] Byrne JP, Mann NC, Dai M, et al. Association Between Emergency Medical Service Response Time and Motor Vehicle Crash Mortality in the United States. JAMA Surgery. 2019;154(4):286-293.

[2] Chari SV, Cui ER, Fehl HE, et al. Community Socioeconomic and Urban-Rural Differences in Emergency Medical Services Times for Suspected Stroke in North Carolina. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2023;63:120-126.

[3] Alanazy ARM, Wark S, Fraser J, Nagle A. Factors Impacting Patient Outcomes Associated With Use of Emergency Medical Services Operating in Urban Versus Rural Areas: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(10):E1728.

[4] Loccoh EC, Joynt Maddox KE, Wang Y, et al. Rural-Urban Disparities in Outcomes of Myocardial Infarction, Heart Failure, and Stroke in the United States. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2022;79(3):267-279.

[5] Faridi B, Davies S, Narendrula R, et al. Rural-Urban Disparities in Mortality of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2025;32(4):327-335.

[6] Berry C, Escobar N, Mann NC, et al. Ambulance Deserts and Inequities in Access to Emergency Medical Services Care. The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2025.

[7] Patterson DG, Coulthard C, Garberson LA, Wingrove G, Larson EH. What Is the Potential of Community Paramedicine to Fill Rural Health Care Gaps? Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. 2016;27(4A):144-158.

[8] Andreyeva E, Kash B, Averhart Preston V, Vu L, Dickey N. Rural Hospital Closures: Effects on Utilization and Medical Spending Among Commercially Insured Individuals. Medical Care. 2022;60(6):437-443.

[9] Miller KEM, James HJ, Holmes GM, Van Houtven CH. The Effect of Rural Hospital Closures on Emergency Medical Service Response and Transport Times. Health Services Research. 2020;55(2):288-300.

[10] Greenwood-Ericksen M, Kamdar N, Lin P, et al. Association of Rural and Critical Access Hospital Status With Patient Outcomes After Emergency Department Visits Among Medicare Beneficiaries. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(11):e2134980.

[11] Bennett KJ, Yuen MW, Merrell MA. Community Paramedicine Applied in a Rural Community. The Journal of Rural Health. 2018;34 Suppl 1:s39-s47.

[12] Shannon B, Eaton G, Lanos C, et al. The Development of Community Paramedicine; A Restricted Review. Health & Social Care in the Community. 2022;30(6):e3547-e3561.

[13] Thurman WA, Moczygemba LR, Tormey K, et al. A Scoping Review of Community Paramedicine: Evidence and Implications for Interprofessional Practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2021;35(2):229-239.

[14] Elden OE, Uleberg O, Lysne M, Haugdahl HS. Community Paramedicine: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Safety Evaluation in Paramedical Emergency Services in Rural Areas. BMJ Open. 2022;12(6):e057752.

[15] Schröder H, Beckers SK, Borgs C, et al. Long-Term Effects of a Prehospital Telemedicine System on Structural and Process Quality Indicators of an Emergency Medical Service. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):310.

[16] Tsou C, Robinson S, Boyd J, et al. Effectiveness of Telehealth in Rural and Remote Emergency Departments: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2021;23(11):e30632.

[17] Bussières S, Tanguay A, Hébert D, Fleet R. Unité De Coordination Clinique Des Services Préhospitaliers D’Urgence: A Clinical Telemedicine Platform That Improves Prehospital and Community Health Care for Rural Citizens. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2017;23(1):188-194.

 

/by

Why Designated Infection Control Officer Training Is Critical for EMS Agencies:

Infection control is not a box to check in emergency medical services. It is a daily operational requirement that protects crews, patients, and the communities EMS agencies serve. Every shift brings unpredictable environments, unknown patient histories, exposure to body fluids, and high contact surfaces inside ambulances and equipment bags. A single missed step in cleaning or PPE use can ripple into employee illness, staffing shortages, patient risk, and compliance problems. 

This is exactly why Designated Infection Control Officer training matters. A DICO is not simply the person who reminds everyone to wipe down a stretcher. The role is a leadership function tied to prevention, education, documentation, exposure management, and policy execution. When the DICO is trained properly, the agency gains a consistent system that reduces risk and keeps operations aligned with current standards. 

Many EMS professionals already rely on continuing education to sharpen clinical skills and maintain credentials. Agencies can integrate infection control leadership into that same education approach through structured online options such as the training available in the EMS continuing education catalog. When infection control leadership is treated like clinical readiness, crews are better prepared for real-world calls where protocols must work under pressure. 

Infection risks in the field are different from hospital risks 

Hospitals have controlled environments, dedicated infection prevention teams, and standardized isolation spaces. EMS crews operate in homes, public spaces, shelters, roadside scenes, and long term care facilities where conditions are inconsistent. Patients may be coughing in close quarters, bleeding during extrication, or vomiting in confined spaces. The ambulance becomes both a treatment room and a transport vessel, and its surfaces can become a transmission pathway if cleaning protocols break down. 

EMS agencies also face the challenge of time. Crews must turn units around quickly for the next call, which creates pressure to shortcut decontamination. A trained DICO builds realistic workflows, ensures supplies are stocked, and sets clear expectations that fit the pace of EMS without sacrificing safety. 

Guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention emphasizes the importance of standard precautions, hand hygiene, respiratory protection, and proper environmental cleaning. Translating that guidance into field operations is where the DICO becomes essential.

What a Designated Infection Control Officer actually does 

A Designated Infection Control Officer provides structure and accountability. In practical terms, the DICO typically oversees infection prevention policies, conducts training, tracks exposures, and coordinates follow-up after incidents. That includes ensuring the agency has clear procedures for bloodborne and airborne exposures, PPE selection, cleaning products and dwell times, equipment decontamination, and documentation. 

The DICO also supports compliance with workplace safety rules. OSHA’s expectations for occupational exposure control and bloodborne pathogen protections are central to EMS risk management, and a trained infection control officer is positioned to keep those requirements current in policy and practice. OSHA’s standards and related resources are available through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 

For agencies building a training plan, infection control leadership pairs well with broader education structures. Many organizations use targeted coursework tied to registry requirements and agency competency goals. Providers pursuing ongoing credential needs can access training that aligns with renewal pathways through the NREMT focused continuing education section, while agencies can coordinate role-specific education to keep leadership and frontline practice aligned. 

Why training is the difference between a title and a functional system 

Naming a DICO without training often leads to inconsistent protocols and avoidable confusion. Training creates a shared language and a playbook that stands up in real operations. It also gives the infection control officer the confidence and credibility to lead across ranks, shifts, and stations. 

Here are the most important reasons Designated Infection Control Officer training is critical for EMS agencies. 

Consistency across crews, shifts, and stations 

Inconsistent infection control is one of the fastest ways to increase exposure risk. Training enables the DICO to implement standardized practices for PPE, cleaning, and post-exposure response. That standardization reduces the variability that comes from different habits across different crews. 

Consistency also improves onboarding. New employees learn one clear method, rather than inheriting informal practices from whoever they ride with first. The DICO can build practical checklists, cleaning workflows, and refresher training that reinforces the same standards repeatedly.

Reduced occupational exposures and improved reporting 

Exposure incidents happen in EMS, but unmanaged exposures create bigger problems. A trained DICO builds a system that encourages timely reporting, ensures documentation is complete, and coordinates the right follow up steps. 

Training also strengthens the agency’s ability to interpret what counts as an exposure, what actions are required, and how to keep employee information and medical steps appropriately handled. This is especially important for bloodborne pathogen scenarios where timing matters. 

Stronger patient safety and reduced cross-contamination 

Infection control is also patient safety. When ambulances, equipment, and hands are not cleaned properly, pathogens can move from one patient encounter to the next. A trained DICO can implement evidence based cleaning protocols, confirm product compatibility with surfaces, and ensure crews understand contact time and proper disinfection technique. 

CDC guidance stresses environmental cleaning and equipment decontamination as part of preventing transmission. Converting that guidance into practical training and audit processes is a major value of the DICO role. 

Better regulatory alignment and reduced liability risk 

EMS agencies operate under multiple oversight pressures, including workplace safety expectations and local public health requirements. When policies are out of date or training is inconsistent, agencies become more vulnerable to audit findings, legal exposure, and reputational damage. 

A trained DICO knows how to keep policies aligned with national standards, and how to create documentation practices that demonstrate due diligence. In many agencies, infection control documentation becomes a key piece of risk management. 

Preparedness for outbreaks and high-consequence pathogens 

Outbreaks stress the system. PPE supply issues, changing guidance, and increased call volume can create confusion. A trained DICO is a stabilizing force during these moments. This role can coordinate policy updates, communicate changes clearly to staff, and ensure the agency maintains a consistent approach without chaos. 

Preparedness also includes training drills and scenario planning. When crews have practiced procedures for isolation precautions and cleaning workflows under time pressure, response becomes faster and safer in real events. 

Training should be part of continuing education, not a one-time event

Infection control evolves. New evidence emerges, products change, and guidance updates. That means the DICO role benefits from continuing education and periodic refreshers rather than a single training experience. 

Many agencies already deliver structured education plans for providers. Adding infection control leadership into that plan is a natural fit. Agencies can also expand learning beyond infection control into other operational priorities through the Specialty course library, which supports role based education across multiple competencies. 

For agency-wide rollouts, cost and scale matter. Group programs can make it easier to train consistently across the organization. Options for structured access at the agency level can be reviewed through department training rates, which many agencies use to keep training organized and trackable. 

What should be included in an effective DICO training focus 

A strong DICO education plan typically covers practical and administrative components, including PPE decision making, decontamination procedures, exposure documentation, policy design, and staff education. It should also address coordination with receiving facilities and public health partners, and guidance interpretation so the agency can update practices without delay. 

A dedicated pathway for this role can be found through the Designated Infection Control Officer training page, which is built for the responsibilities and realities EMS agencies face. 

To keep training grounded in real standards, outbound references from authoritative organizations remain valuable. In addition to CDC and OSHA, the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians offers context on certification and education expectations, and the National Fire Protection Association provides standards that many EMS organizations track for operational and safety alignment. 

How CE Solutions can support stronger infection control leadership 

CE Solutions provides education pathways that strengthen infection control readiness and support agencies building consistent training systems. Through flexible online delivery, structured course access, and department-level options, agencies can maintain continuity across shifts while keeping learning measurable and repeatable. 

For organizations formalizing the infection control officer role, CE Solutions offers a clear route to role-specific education and ongoing training integration through the continuing education platform and the Designated Infection Control Officer coursework referenced above. This supports agencies that want infection control leadership that is trained, current, and operationally effective.

/by

Medication Math: The most dangerous skill we don’t practice enough as EMS Providers.

Medication math represents a critical safety vulnerability in EMS, with 28-35% of prehospital pediatric medication administrations containing dosing errors despite implementation of dosing reference aids.[1-2] Among practicing paramedics, mean performance on drug calculation examinations is only 51.4%, with conceptual errors (incorrect problem setup) more prevalent than mathematical errors.[3]

The prehospital environment creates unique challenges that amplify calculation risks. Paramedics have limited exposure to critically ill children (pediatric cases represent only ~7% of EMS calls), face extreme time pressure and emotional stress, and must perform weight-based calculations for each individual child without the safety barriers present in hospitals.[4] The need to dilute medications to different concentrations and transfer doses from pre-loaded syringes using stopcocks introduces additional complexity where errors frequently occur.[5]

Specific high-risk medications demonstrate alarming error rates. 

Epinephrine shows incorrect dosing in 29-68% of administrations (including 10-fold overdoses with mean errors of 808% of the intended dose), intranasal and intravenous fentanyl in 68.5-68.8% of cases, and midazolam in 36.8-54% of administrations.[2][4-5] Dextrose 50% and glucagon each show 75% error rates.[2]

The problem stems from multiple calculation-related failures. Incorrect weight estimation contributes to 12.7% of dosing errors, with patient age-based estimation producing more errors than Broselow-Luten tape or asking parents.[6] However, even when weight is correct, improper drug dilution accounts for 31.6% of errors, and conceptual errors represent 48.5% of all mistakes among paramedic students—indicating fundamental mathematical understanding deficits rather than simple arithmetic failures.[1][7]

Practice opportunities are severely limited.

Paramedics report infrequent performance of drug calculations in daily practice and rare inclusion of medication math in continuing education programs.[3] Unlike hospital settings with pharmacist verification and double-checking protocols, EMS providers work with minimal safety barriers, making individual calculation competency essential yet underdeveloped.[8-9]

 

Prehospital Emergency Care. 2025. Harmer BM, Hoyle JD, Edwards A, et al.New

Prehospital Emergency Care. 2023. Kazi R, Hoyle JD, Huffman C, et al.

Prehospital Emergency Care. 2000. Hubble MW, Paschal KR, Sanders TA.

JAMA Network Open. 2021. Siebert JN, Bloudeau L, Combescure C, et al.

Prehospital Emergency Care. 2019. Hoyle JD, Ekblad G, Hover T, et al.

Prehospital Emergency Care. 2021. Hoyle JD, Ekblad G, Woodwyk A, et al.

Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ. 2013. Eastwood K, Boyle MJ, Williams B.

Prehospital Emergency Care. 2020. Cicero MX, Adelgais K, Hoyle JD, et al.

Prehospital Emergency Care. 2022. Walker D, Moloney C, SueSee B, et al.

 

/by

Mechanical CPR: Essential Tool or Overhyped Technology?

What the Evidence Shows

Mechanical CPR devices are widely used in many different medical settings. You can mainly find them in ambulances, emergency departments, clinics, and cath labs. They offer consistent compressions, reduced rescuer fatigue, and safer operations in difficult environments (e.g., patient transport). However, the scientific evidence shows that mechanical CPR does not improve survival or neurological outcomes compared to manual high quality CPR.

Large randomized controlled trials such as PARAMEDIC, CIRC, LINC, and ASPIRE have studied more than 12,000 cardiac arrest patients. Across these studies, patient survival rates were essentially the same between mechanical and manual CPR. In some cases, neurological outcomes were slightly worse in the mechanical CPR groups. These findings shaped the 2025 American Heart Association Guidelines, which classified the use of routine mechanical CPR with a rating of Class 3, meaning there is no benefit for the patient. This indicates that mechanical CPR is not recommended and should not be used as the default approach because it does not improve patient outcomes.

The lack of benefit is not due to poor compression quality. Mechanical devices often deliver the needed depth and rate. The issue is that device deployment causes delays and interruptions as quality compressions alone do not guarantee better outcomes.

When Mechanical CPR Is Useful

Although routine use is not recommended, mechanical CPR can be helpful in specific situations where manual CPR cannot be delivered safely or effectively. The AHA assigns a Class 2b recommendation for these scenarios, meaning the benefit is better than the risk and mechanical CPR may be considered.

Examples include:

  • Transport in moving ambulances or aircraft
  • Limited personnel where continuous manual compressions are not feasible
  • Prolonged resuscitations where fatigue reduces CPR quality
  • Cath labs where CPR must continue during procedures
  • Infectious disease situations where minimizing exposure is important

In these settings, mechanical CPR does not outperform humans. Instead, it prevents CPR quality from deteriorating when manual compressions are difficult to maintain.

Mechanical CPR can also serve as a bridge to advanced therapies such as extracorporeal CPR or during organ donation protocols. These are specialized, controlled environments rather than routine prehospital cardiac arrest cases.

The Risk of Interruptions

One of the most important concerns with mechanical CPR is the potential for long pauses during device placement. Teams that do not practice regularly may create interruptions of 20 to 30 seconds or more. These pauses cause a reduction in cerebral perfusion pressure, “ramp up” time, and can reduce the effectiveness of resuscitative measures. Longer pauses are linked to lower survival rates and neurological damage. There is a reduced compression fraction and it will take several subsequent compressions to rebuild pressure to increase blood flow to the brain and through the rest of the body.  

The AHA emphasizes that mechanical CPR should only be used by teams with regular training, quality assurance programs, and close monitoring of hands off time. A device cannot compensate for poor teamwork or inefficient systems.

Types of Mechanical CPR Devices

Mechanical CPR devices generally fall into two categories:

  1. Load distributing band devices that wrap around the chest and compress circumferentially.
  2. Pneumatic piston devices that compress the chest from front to back.

Both types can deliver consistent compressions, but neither has demonstrated improved survival or neurological outcomes compared with high quality manual CPR. The limitation is not the engineering of the device but the biological and systemic challenges of cardiac arrest care.

Bottom Line

Mechanical CPR devices are useful tools but not superior alternatives to skilled manual CPR. They should no longer replace manual compressions as the standard approach. Their value lies in specific situations where manual CPR cannot be performed safely or effectively.

Key priorities:

  • Strong CPR training and practice
  • Effective teamwork
  • Minimizing interruptions

A mechanical device can support a well functioning system, but it cannot fix a system that neglects the fundamentals.

References

  1. Part 3: Adult Basic and Advanced Life Support: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2020. Panchal AR, Bartos JA, Cabañas JG, et al.
  2. Part 7: Adult Basic Life Support: 2025 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2025. Kleinman ME, Buick JE, Huber N, et al.
  3. Part 1: Executive Summary: 2025 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2025. Del Rios M, Bartos JA, Panchal AR, et al.
  4. Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Prehospital Management. Lancet. 2018. Ong MEH, Perkins GD, Cariou A.
  5. Mechanical CPR: Who? When? How? Critical Care. 2018. Poole K, Couper K, Smyth MA, Yeung J, Perkins GD.
  6. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality: Improving Cardiac Resuscitation Outcomes Both Inside and Outside the Hospital. Circulation. 2013. Meaney PA, Bobrow BJ, Mancini ME, et al.
/by

12-Lead ECG in EMS

A patient calls 911 for indigestion and weakness. No severe chest pain, no dramatic distress, just a feeling that something is not right. Minutes later, a 12 lead ECG reveals ST segment elevation. That single test changes everything. What sounded minor is actually a time sensitive cardiac emergency. This is why the 12 lead ECG remains one of the most important tools in prehospital care.

Imagine it is your first week working on a 911 ambulance. You and your partner respond to a call for a 54 year old woman who says she feels ill, has indigestion, and feels generally weak. When you arrive, the scene is safe and you find her lying on the couch looking pale and uncomfortable. While your partner begins asking questions, you start attaching the cardiac monitor and obtaining vital signs. The moment feels busy. You are managing cables, trying to remember proper lead placement, and thinking through possible causes of her symptoms all at once. Your partner notices the stress and helps finish placing the electrodes correctly. Then comes the key question about whether a 12 lead ECG should be performed. Before you even respond, your partner starts the test. The tracing prints and shows ST elevation in the lateral leads. This patient is not having simple indigestion. She is having a ST elevation myocardial infarction, and now rapid transport and early hospital notification become the priority. That decision to obtain a 12 lead may save heart muscle and possibly her life.

In the field, EMS professionals work in fast paced, high pressure environments. Long hours, frequent calls, and critical situations can lead to cognitive overload. When that happens, even routine tasks can feel more difficult. That is why strong fundamentals and regular review are so important. The ability to quickly and accurately obtain a 12 lead ECG allows providers to recognize serious conditions that may not be obvious based on symptoms alone. Patients with cardiac problems do not always present with classic chest pain. Many report nausea, fatigue, weakness, shortness of breath, or a general feeling of being unwell. A 10 second ECG tracing can provide information that completely changes the direction of patient care.

A standard 12 lead ECG uses ten electrodes placed on the limbs and chest to create twelve views of the heart’s electrical activity. These views help providers assess heart rhythm, conduction, signs of ischemia or injury, and other abnormalities. In EMS, this information helps determine how sick a patient truly is and how quickly they need definitive care. Early recognition of a STEMI in the field allows for earlier activation of cardiac catheterization teams and reduces delays once the patient reaches the hospital.

The technology behind the ECG has come a long way. Early machines were large, complex, and limited to hospital settings. Over time, advances in electronics and design led to portable monitors that can be used in ambulances, clinics, and emergency departments. Modern cardiac monitors used in EMS combine monitoring, defibrillation, and 12 lead acquisition in a single device. Many can even transmit ECGs directly to receiving hospitals, allowing physicians to review the tracing before the patient arrives. This level of early information sharing can significantly improve outcomes for patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Although other forms of ECG monitoring exist, such as Holter monitors and exercise stress testing, the resting 12 lead ECG is the primary tool used in the prehospital environment. It is essential for evaluating chest pain, shortness of breath, syncope, weakness, and unexplained illness, especially in patients with cardiac risk factors. Because symptoms can be vague or atypical, a low threshold for obtaining a 12 lead is often the safest approach.

The key takeaway for EMS providers is simple. When a patient’s symptoms could possibly be cardiac in origin, obtaining a 12 lead ECG is rarely the wrong decision. Confidence with lead placement and basic interpretation comes from repetition, training, and ongoing review. The more comfortable you are with the process, the faster and more accurate you will be when it matters most. A few extra minutes on scene to obtain a quality 12 lead can lead to earlier recognition, faster treatment, and better outcomes for the patients who depend on you.

/by