In Praise of CEMSMAC

Last Thursday I was extremely proud of the actions of the Connecticut Emergency Medical Services Medical Advisory Committee (CEMSMAC) who voted unanimously (5-0) to back the draft document on spinal boards proposed in October by the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP), and to use that document as a guideline to developing statewide guidelines limiting the use of long boards for spinal immobilization.

National Association of EMS Physicians Position Statement Backboards

The National Association of EMS Physicians Believes That:

• There is no evidence that the use of a backboards reduces spinal injury or effectively
provides anatomically appropriate spinal immobilization or protection.

• There is evidence that backboards result in harm by causing pain, changing the normal anatomic lordosis of the spine, inducing patient agitation, causing pressure ulcers, and compromising respiratory function.

• The only practical value of backboards is for extrication to a transport vehicle. Once
extricated, patients should be taken off the backboard.

• Backboards should not be used for spinal immobilization. Placing ambulatory patients
on backboards is unacceptable.

• In general, patients should not be transported or otherwise kept on backboards for any
length of time.

Draft – board approval pending

CEMSMAC is composed of the chairman of Connecticut’s five regional medical advisory committees. They meet once a month to address issues and guide policy for Connecticut’s EMS system, and advise the Commissioner of Public Health. While Connecticut does not have statewide treatment guidelines, the actions of CEMSMAC are useful in aiding the local regional committees and their policies can, when endorsed by the Commissioner of Public Health, have the force of statewide policy.

Several months ago, the Yale-New Haven Sponsor Hospital program, which provides medical control for the New Haven area and many surrounding towns, issued the following memo:

Effective immediately, long backboards will no longer be utilized for spinal immobilization of ambulatory patients. Patients who are ambulatory at the scene, but who require cervical spinal immobilization based on our selective spinal immobilization protocol, will be placed in an appropriately sized collar, seated on the ambulance stretcher, and secured in the position of comfort, limiting movement of the neck during the process. This change in procedure is the first step toward eventually using long boards only when needed to facilitate extrication, and not during transport.

As stated, it was their intention that the document be a first step toward eliminating the use of spinal boards for everything except extrication and movement. They were evidently waiting ratification of the NAEMSP’s draft position paper. Unfortunately, however, the NAEMSP’s Board of Directors chose instead to co-endorse the following statement jointly with the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma.

EMS Spinal Precautions and the Use of the Long Backboard

Position Statement of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the American
College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma

The National Association of EMS Physicians and the American College of Surgeons Committee
on Trauma believe that:

• Long backboards are commonly used to attempt to provide rigid spinal immobilization
among EMS trauma patients. However, the benefit of long backboards is largely

• The long backboard can induce pain, patient agitation, and respiratory compromise.
Further, the backboard can decrease tissue perfusion at pressure points, leading to the
development of pressure ulcers.

• Utilization of backboards for spinal immobilization during transport should be judicious,
so that potential benefits outweigh risks.

• Appropriate patients to be immobilized with a backboard may include those with:

o Blunt trauma and altered level of consciousness;
o Spinal pain or tenderness;
o Neurologic complaint (e.g., numbness or motor weakness)
o Anatomic deformity of the spine;
o High energy mechanism of injury and:
* Drug or alcohol intoxication;
* Inability to communicate; and/or
* Distracting injury.

• Patients for whom immobilization on a backboard is not necessary include those with all
of the following:

o Normal level of consciousness (GCS 15);
o No spine tenderness or anatomic abnormality;
o No neurologic findings or complaints;
o No distracting injury;
o No intoxication.

• Patients with penetrating trauma to the head, neck or torso and no evidence of spinal
injury should not be immobilized on a backboard.

• Spinal precautions can be maintained by application of a rigid cervical collar and
securing the patient firmly to the EMS stretcher, and may be most appropriate for:
o Patients who are found to be ambulatory at the scene;
o Patients who must be transported for a protracted time, particularly prior to
interfacility transfer; or
o Patients for whom a backboard is not otherwise indicated.

• Whether or not a backboard is used, attention to spinal precautions among at-risk patients
is paramount. These include application of a cervical collar, adequate security to a
stretcher, minimal movement/transfers, and maintenance of in-line stabilization during
any necessary movement/transfers.

• Education of field emergency medical services personnel should include evaluation of
risk of spinal injury in the context of options to provide spinal precautions.

• Protocols or plans to promote judicious use of long backboards during prehospital care
should engage as many stakeholders in the trauma/EMS system as possible.

• Patients should be removed from backboards as soon as practical in an emergency

NAEMSP Board of Directors Approved: December 17, 2012
ACS-Committee on Trauma Approved: October 30, 2012

(A typical compromise document that can’t come out and say what it wants to say. This is my favorite line: “… the benefit of long backboards is largely unproven.”)

The issue before CEMSMAC that Thursday was: Based on these three documents, what should Connecticut do, if anything, in addressing the issue of long boards? Adopt any of the three positions detailed above? Or take no position and let the defacto standard – that long boards are essential to complete spinal immobilization continue?

They considered training issues (how do you eliminate something that is part of the National Registry Test?) and the possibility of potential liability from not following what some regard as the national standard. They also considered the evidence for and against using the backboard.

Here is what they chose:

The health of patients over fear of lawyers.

Evidence of harm over no evidence of benefit.

To lead rather than to follow.


There is an old saying that no one wants to be the first to adopt a change and no one wants to be the last. CEMSMAC was not the first EMS group to adopt this – some major metropolitan EMS systems have done it — but as state groups go they are certainly in the vanguard on this one. May their example encourage others to follow.

Shout outs also to the drafters of the NAEMSP’s document, the Yale-New Haven program and their physicians for leading the way in Connecticut, all the researchers such as Mark Hauswald who shined a bright light on this issue, and those who have written so passionately about the issue such as Bryan Bledsoe, Rogue Medic, and many others.

The actual writing and implementation of the guidelines may take a little while, but they are coming. I’ll post on their development and implementation.


  • Rick Goulet says:

    It is time for Paramedic/EMS services got in touch with the 21st century with reagrds to immobilization of concious mobile patients. Good on the above service. There are many studies that support the above. CanadianC-Spine Clearance Rules have been supported for use in pre hospital environment.

  • Carin M. Van Gelder says:

    Thanks, Streetmedic. This is why EMS is officially a medical subspecialty – we (EMS docs) proved it by pushing for true evidence-based guidelines.

    • medicscribe says:

      Thanks, Karen. You and your Emergency Medicine collegues are reshaping EMS for all of us, and we thank you for it. Keep up the fight!

  • Christopher says:

    Brilliant work by Xenia Township, Yale (thank you Dr. Van Gelder), Alameda County, and now CEMSMAC! I’m working on getting this in my service area.

  • Becky Heath says:

    Have known several patients that have benefited from not using a LBB. It’s just not always in the best interests of.the patients . when it’s needed and when it’s not. So glad it’s finally being reconsidered

  • Joe W. says:

    Dr. Van Gelder is a former medical director of mine and I have to say Carin; Al, Sandy, Dr. Cohn and Kevin Burns have been continuing the great medical direction you had put forth when you were down here. The omission of long boards is working quite well and has been definitely an improvement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

background image Blogger Img

Peter Canning

JEMS Talk: Google Hangout

Recent Posts
copy-medicscribeheader.png Changes September 29, 2015
medicscribeheader.png Surprises September 17, 2015
The Finger August 26, 2015
medicscribeheaderbg Assembly Line August 24, 2015
copy-medicscribeheader.png Patient Follow-up June 21, 2015
  • ems-health-safety (7)
  • ems-topics (712)
  • hazmat (1)
  • Uncategorized (426)
  • Archives
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • May 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • Comments
    Thanks for the advice, love your books by the way!
    2015-09-27 04:04:59
    Keep your eyes open and your mouth shut unless you have something to say. Be nice to everyone, especially your patients. Keep showing up.
    2015-09-27 00:55:46
    The 6 Rs – The Right Drug
    You are right. I wrote the post so long ago, it is hard to remember. Perhaps I meant to write salicylates. Who knows. Good catch.
    2015-09-27 00:54:32
    The 6 Rs – The Right Drug
    ASA is not an NSAID.
    2015-09-24 12:50:52
    Hey PC, do you have any solid advice for someone new to EMS?
    2015-09-18 23:27:32

    Now Available: Mortal Men

    Order My Books


    FireEMS Blogs eNewsletter

    Sign-up to receive our free monthly eNewsletter