Introduction: There are established and validated clinical decision tools for cervical spine clearance. Almost all the rules include spinal tenderness on exam as an indication for imaging. Our goal was to apply GLASS, a previously derived clinical decision tool for cervical spine clearance, to thoracolumbar injuries. GLass intact Assures Safe Spine (GLASS) is a simple, objective method to evaluate those patients involved in motor vehicle collisions and determine which are at low risk for thoracolumbar injuries.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Accident Sampling System-Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) over an 11-year period (1998-2008). Sampled occupant cases selected in this study included patients age 16-60 who were belt-restrained, front- seat occupants involved in a crash with no airbag deployment, and no glass damage prior to the crash.

Results: We evaluated 14,191 occupants involved in motor vehicle collisions in this analysis. GLASS had a sensitivity of 94.4% (95% CI [86.3-98.4%]), specificity of 54.1% (95% CI [53.2-54.9%]), and negative predictive value of 99.9% (95% CI [99.8-99.9%]) for thoracic injuries, and a sensitivity of 90.3% (95% CI [82.8-95.2%]), specificity of 54.2% (95% CI [53.3-54.9%]), and negative predictive value of 99.9% (95% CI [99.7-99.9%]) for lumbar injuries.

Conclusion: The GLASS rule represents the possibility of a novel, more-objective thoracolumbar spine clearance tool. Prospective evaluation would be required to further evaluate the validity of this clinical decision rule. [West J Emerg Med. 2017;18(6)1108-1113.]

Introduction: There are established and validated clinical decision tools for cervical spineclearance. Almost all the rules include spinal tenderness on exam as an indication for imaging. Ourgoal was to apply GLASS, a previously derived clinical decision tool for cervical spine clearance, tothoracolumbar injuries. GLass intact Assures Safe Spine (GLASS) is a simple, objective method toevaluate those patients involved in motor vehicle collisions and determine which are at low risk forthoracolumbar injuries.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Accident Sampling System-Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) over an 11-year period (1998-2008). Sampled occupantcases selected in this study included patients age 16-60 who were belt-restrained, front- seatoccupants involved in a crash with no airbag deployment, and no glass damage prior to the crash.

Results: We evaluated 14,191 occupants involved in motor vehicle collisions in this analysis.GLASS had a sensitivity of 94.4% (95% CI [86.3-98.4%]), specificity of 54.1% (95% CI [53.2-54.9%]), and negative predictive value of 99.9% (95% CI [99.8-99.9%]) for thoracic injuries, and asensitivity of 90.3% (95% CI [82.8-95.2%]), specificity of 54.2% (95% CI [53.3-54.9%]), and negativepredictive value of 99.9% (95% CI [99.7-99.9%]) for lumbar injuries.

Conclusion: The GLASS rule represents the possibility of a novel, more-objective thoracolumbarspine clearance tool. Prospective evaluation would be required to further evaluate the validity of thisclinical decision rule.

Introduction: Pennsylvania, among other states, includes surgical airway management, or cricothyrotomy, within the paramedic scope of practice. However, there is scant literature that evaluates paramedic perception of clinical competency in cricothyrotomy. The goal of this project is to assess clinical exposure, education and self-perceived competency of ground paramedics in cricothyrotomy.

Methods: Eighty-six paramedics employed by four ground emergency medical services agencies completed a 22-question written survey that assessed surgical airway attempts, training, skills verification, and perceptions about procedural competency. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate responses.

Results: Only 20% (17/86, 95% CI [11-28%]) of paramedics had attempted cricothyrotomy, most (13/17 or 76%, 95% CI [53-90%]) of whom had greater than 10 years experience. Most subjects (63/86 or 73%, 95% CI [64-82%]) did not reply that they are well-trained to perform cricothyrotomy and less than half (34/86 or 40%, 95% CI [30-50%]) felt they could correctly perform cricothyrotomy on their first attempt. Among subjects with five or more years of experience, 39/70 (56%, 95% CI [44-68%]) reported 0-1 hours per year of practical cricothyrotomy training within the last five years. Half of the subjects who were able to recall (40/80, 50% 95% CI [39-61%]) reported having proficiency verification for cricothyrotomy within the past five years.

Conclusion: Paramedics surveyed indicated that cricothyrotomy is rarely performed, even among those with years of experience. Many paramedics felt that their training in this area is inadequate and did not feel confident to perform the procedure. Further study to determine whether to modify paramedic scope of practice and/or to develop improved educational and testing methods is warranted.