| Title |
Considerations for Safe EMS Transport of Patients Infected with Ebola Virus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Prehospital Emergency Care, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3109/10903127.2014.983661 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John J. Lowe, Katelyn C. Jelden, Paul J. Schenarts, Lloyd E. Rupp, Kingdon J. Hawes, Benjamin M. Tysor, Raymond G. Swansiger, Shelly S. Schwedhelm, Philip W. Smith, Shawn G. Gibbs |
| Abstract |
Abstract The Nebraska Biocontainment Unit through the Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, Nebraska, recently received patients with confirmed Ebola virus from West Africa. The Nebraska Biocontainment Unit and Omaha Fire Department's emergency medical services (EMS) coordinated patient transportation from airport to the high-level isolation unit. Transportation of these highly infectious patients capitalized on over 8 years of meticulous planning and rigorous infection control training to ensure the safety of transport personnel as well as the community during transport. Although these transports occurred with advanced notice and after confirmed Ebola virus disease (EVD) diagnosis, approaches and key lessons acquired through this effort will advance the ability of any EMS provider to safely transport a confirmed or suspected patient with EVD. Three critical areas have been identified from our experience: ambulance preparation, appropriate selection and use of personal protective equipment, and environmental decontamination. |
Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 30% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 70% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 30% |
Mendeley demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 93 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Researcher | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 26 | 28% |
| Unknown | 15 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 10% |
| Engineering | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 21% |