- Emergency Medicine
Clinical Assistant Professor, Emergency Medicine
Board Certification: Emergency Medicine, American Board of Emergency Medicine (2017)
Board Certification: Emergency Medical Services, American Board of Emergency Medicine (2017)
Fellowship:UCSD Emergency Medicine Residency (2017) CA
Medical Education:Albert Einstein College of Medicine Office of the Registrar (2013) NY
Residency:University of Texas at Austin (2016) TX
The Digital EMS California Academy of Learning: One State's Innovative Approach to EMS Fellow Education.
AEM education and training
2019; 3 (1): 96–99
Introduction: Emergency medical services (EMS) fellowships are growing in significance within the United States prehospital health care system. While fellowships represent a cornerstone of EMS subspecialty education, an individual learner's experiences are limited by local resources and practices. California EMS fellowships have developed an innovative method for expanding fellows' educational experiences outside their immediate programs.The Innovative Education Method: Each month, fellows, fellowship directors, and local EMS medical directors from throughout the state participate in a video conference. This meeting is divided into four distinct components: book chapter presentation, board-style question review, call review, and an EMS literature review.Chapter Review: The two-volume text Emergency Medical Services: Clinical Practice and Systems Oversight has been categorized into 12 modules, one for each month of the fellowship. Every meeting, one fellow prepares a didactic presentation summarizing the highlights from that month's chapters.Question Review: Fellows each create five multiple-choice questions and answers, based on the section reading. Questions are assessed by the group, both for informational content and for appropriate formatting. After completion, these questions are submitted for future review for the EMS fellowship in-service examination.Call Review: Based on that month's module topics, a call is chosen and reviewed. Regional protocol and practice differences from different systems are discussed. The online medical oversight provided and the prehospital provider performance are evaluated by the group.Literature Review: Fellows not assigned to present a call or didactic segment each choose one paper focusing on a subject relevant to the module or call. Strengths of the study design, analysis, outcomes, and relevance to EMS practice are discussed.Outcomes: Fellows and experienced EMS attendings are exposed to different protocol and system approaches in an interactive and accessible format. This partnership expands educational opportunities for fellows and promotes collaboration across EMS systems.
View details for PubMedID 30680354
A simple decision rule predicts futile resuscitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Resuscitation of cardiac arrest involves invasive and traumatic interventions and places a large burden on limited EMS resources. Our aim was to identify prehospital cardiac arrests for which resuscitation is extremely unlikely to result in survival to hospital discharge.We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all cardiac arrests in San Mateo County, California, for which paramedics were dispatched, from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018, using the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) database. We described characteristics of patients, arrests, and EMS responses, and used recursive partitioning to develop decision rules to identify arrests unlikely to survive to hospital discharge, or to survive with good neurologic function.From 2015-2018, 1750 patients received EMS dispatch for cardiac arrest in San Mateo County. We excluded 44 patients for whom resuscitation was terminated due to DNR directives. Median age was 69 years (IQR 57 - 81), 563 (33.0%) patients were female, 816 (47.8%) had witnessed arrests, 651 (38.2%) received bystander CPR, 421 (24.7%) had an initial shockable rhythm, and 1178 (69.1%) arrested at home. A simple rule (non-shockable initial rhythm, unwitnessed arrest, and age 80 or greater) excludes 223 (13.1%) arrests, of whom none survived to hospital discharge.A simple decision rule (non-shockable rhythm, unwitnessed arrest, age ≥ 80) identifies arrests for which resuscitation is futile. If validated, this rule could be applied by EMS policymakers to identify cardiac arrests for which the trauma and expense of resuscitation are extremely unlikely to result in survival.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.06.011
View details for PubMedID 31228547