Skip to content

Post-traumatic Stress Injuries Among Paramedics and Emergency Dispatchers

Post-traumatic Stress Injuries Among Paramedics and Emergency Dispatchers

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04202042
Enrollment
70
Registered
2019-12-17
Start date
2019-10-21
Completion date
2020-11-30
Last updated
2019-12-17

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Absenteeism, Acute Stress Disorder, Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Substance Abuse

Keywords

PFA, PTSD, Public safety personnel

Brief summary

As part of their work, emergency first responders, such as paramedics and emergency medical dispatchers are exposed daily to traumatic events. These traumatic events can have many impacts on mental health, such as acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Research has shown that intervening early after exposure to a traumatic event helps to identify people at risk and to prevent post-traumatic stress disorder. The Psychological First Aid approach originally developed for mass traumas, is an intervention advocated by international experts today following a traumatic event. However, this approach is still very little studied, especially when it is part of an organization of emergency first responders. It therefore still lacks scientific validity. The main objective of this research will be to assess whether the Psychological First Aid program provided by peer-support workers helps to reduce the initial distress caused by traumatic events and to foster short- and long-term adaptive functioning and coping.

Detailed description

In May 2018, Urgences-Santé (i.e., EMT corporation for the Montreal area) implemented PFA as a peer-support intervention for EMT affected by traumatic events in the course of their work. In collaboration with Urgences-Santé, this project aims to evaluate the feasibility of PFA as a post-traumatic peer-support intervention among EMT. Feasibility studies are used to determine whether an intervention should be recommended for efficacy testing when there are few previously published studies or existing data using a specific intervention technique. This catalyst project relies on participatory research principles. With Urgences-Santé stakeholders, three specific research objectives were elaborated in order to answer the question Can PFA work for EMT?: 1. To assess the acceptability of PFA for EMT; 2. To assess the implementation of PFA in Urgences-Santé; 3. To test the limited-efficacy (i.e., efficacy within limitations such as small sample size and convenience sampling of PFA among Urgences-Santé trauma-exposed EMT). Based on the few studies that assess different aspects of the feasibility of PFA in high-risk organizations, this project relies on three working hypotheses. First, we expect that PFA be acceptable among EMT. Second, we stipulate that few obstacles limited the implementation of PFA in Urgences-Santé given that this organization followed Forbes' implementation framework and favored a train-the-trainer approach. Third, we foresee that PFA will accelerate the recovery process of EMT, as measured by a greater decrease in PTSI, heart rate and absenteeism in the days following the traumatic event among those who received PFA compared to those who received the standard intervention (i.e., reference to employee aid program). If confirmed, these hypotheses will allow us to affirm that PFA can work as a post-traumatic intervention among EMT for the prevention of PTSI. Our results would therefore represent a catalyst towards a larger RCT that would answer the question Does PFA work for EMT? with an adequate sample size.

Interventions

PFA responders (peer support workers) are trained to deliver 8 core actions: contact and engagement, safety and comfort, stabilization, information gathering, practical assistance, connection with social supports, information on coping, and linkage with collaborative services

OTHERUsual organisational intervention

Emergency intervention by workplace psychologist and limited therapeutic sessions with employee aid program

Sponsors

Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire en santé Mentale de Montréal
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
FACTORIAL
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Actively working at Urgence-Santé organization as paramedics or emergency medical dispatchers * Exposed to a traumatic event at work (after the baseline)

Exclusion criteria

\- at high risk of suicidal behaviour

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in substance abuse : drug4 times after exposure to the traumatic event; 48-72 hours (T1), 7 to 9 days (T2), 30 to 32 days (T3), 90 to 95 days (T4)The Drug Abuse Screening Test (Villalobos-Gallegos, Perez-Lopez, Graue-Moreno, Marin-Navarrete & Mendoza-Hassey, 2015) Scores : Yes or No, higher Yes answers mean worse outcome
Change in anxiety symptoms4 times after exposure to the traumatic event; 48-72 hours (T1), 7 to 9 days (T2), 30 to 32 days (T3), 90 to 95 days (T4)The General Anxiety Disorder-7 scale (Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams & Löwe, 2006) Scores : 0 to 3, higher scores mean worse outcome
Change in substance abuse : alcohol4 times after exposure to the traumatic event; 48-72 hours (T1), 7 to 9 days (T2), 30 to 32 days (T3), 90 to 95 days (T4)The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (Saunders, Aasland, Babor, de la Fuente & Grant, 1993) Scores : 0 to 5, higher scores mean worse outcome
Change in acute stress symptoms2 times after exposure to the traumatic event; 48-72 hours (T1), 7 to 9 days (T2)The Acute Stress Disorder Scale (Bryant, Moulds et Guthrie, 2000) Scores : 1 to 5, higher scores mean worse outcome.
Change in post-traumatic stress symptomsBaseline (T0) + 2 times after exposure to the traumatic event; 30 to 32 days (T3), 90 to 95 days (T4)The Post-Traumatic Checklist-5 (Ashbaugh, Houle-Johnson, Herbert, El-Hage et Brunet, 2016) Scores : 0 to 4, higher scores mean worse outcome.
Change in depressive symptoms4 times after exposure to the traumatic event; 48-72 hours (T1), 7 to 9 days (T2), 30 to 32 days (T3), 90 to 95 days (T4)The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (Kroenke, Spitzer & Williams, 2001) Scores : 0 to 3, higher scores mean worse outcome.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Absenteeism at work90 to 95 days after the traumatic event (T4)Number of days taken off of work for psychological reasons from the time of traumatic exposure up to T4. Information requested directly from participants in the questionnaire set.
Change in heart rate variationBaseline (T0) + each week until 90 to 95 days after the eventManual measurement (wrist or neck) of the resting heart rate at each measurement time Scores = pulse per minute, higher scores mean worse outcome

Countries

Canada

Contacts

Primary ContactSteve Geoffrion
s.geoffrion@umontreal.ca+1 514 343-6111
Backup ContactMarine Tessier
marine.tessier@umontreal.ca+1 438 388-1890

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026