Thanks for this. I recently had a chat with Ian Pearse from Physio and he
said that some ambulance services are now undetaking telemetry 12 lead
ecg's. I realise that the Americans have been doing it for donkeys years but
unaware that they were doing so without evidence to back up their actions.
Suprising really.
The ramifications of what you have stated may alter the way in which we look
at 12 lead ecg's and the proposed thrombolytic fast track system that some
areas wish to put in place. I believe that Mark Whitbread has been doing
just this for a couple of years now down in Tower Hamlets.
If you don't mind I'll forward your e-mail to interested parties - I'll wait
until you've given the OK before I send it though.
Mike Bjarkoy
Paramedic
Sussex
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Timothy J Coats
(SURG) 7728
Sent: 29 March 2000 11:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: medical equipment in ambulances
> I have used my Nokia 5110 in the back of my ambulance on many occasions to
> prealert the AEU and at no time have I had any interferance problems. On
our
> trucks we have Marquette 1500, Lifepak 11's, Minipaks and other ansillaroy
> equipmet such as Nellcor pulse oximetry. Never been a problem. In fact
both
> the Marquette and Lifepaks are designed to be linked to a mobile phone for
> transmission of 12 lead ecgs. If there were a problem on that front then
> they wouldn't have developed the technology.
> The only thing I am not sure about is pacing units
This is a triumph of anecdote over evidence. There certainly is a
significant
problem of electromagnetic interference, and NONE of the defibs on the
market
are shielded from this. Be especially careful if you are carrying an ITU
patient
with infusion pumps as you will have no defence if your mobile phone is
switched on in the back of an ambulance and the patient comes to harm.
A summary of the evidence is available at http://www.medical-
devices.gov.uk/mobile.htm. The full report is available from the Medical
Devices
Agency (quote DB9702).
The summary says:
"Overall, in 23% of tests medical devices suffered electromagnetic
interference (EMI) from handsets. 43% of these interference incidents would
have had a direct impact on patient care, and were rated as serious.
The type of radio handset made a large difference to the likelihood of
interference. At a distance of 1m; 41% of medical devices suffered
interference from emergency services handsets, 35% suffered interference
from security/porters handsets but only 4% from cellphones. No significant
levels of interference were detected from cordless handsets/local area
networks or cellular base stations."
In the face of such clear warnings there is certainly a Clinical Governance
issue for ambulance services that requires the development of local
policies.
Tim.
Timothy J Coats MD FRCS FFAEM
Senior Lecturer in Accident and Emergency / Pre-Hospital Care
Royal London Hospital, UK.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|