Article Text

Download PDFPDF
PP16 A comparison of Australasian jurisdictional ambulance services’ paramedic clinical practice guidelines series: adult anaphylaxis
  1. Matt Wilkinson-Stokes1,
  2. Desiree Rowland1,
  3. Maddison Spencer1,
  4. Sonja Maria2,
  5. Marc Colbeck1
  1. 1Australian Catholic University, Australia
  2. 2Charles Sturt University, Australia


Background This article forms part of a series that seeks to identify interjurisdictional differences in the scope of paramedic practice and, consequently, differences in patient treatment based on which jurisdiction a patient is geographically located within at the time of their complaint.

Method The current Clinical Practice Guidelines of each Australasian domestic jurisdictional ambulance service (JAS) were accessed during June 2020 and updated in August 2021. Content was extracted and verified by 18 paramedics or managers representing all 10 JASs.

Results All JASs use intramuscular adrenaline as a first-line agent for adult anaphylaxis. Beyond this, significant differences exist in all treatments: five services provide nebulised adrenaline; 10 services provide adrenaline infusions (one requires doctor approval; one provides repeat boluses); six services provide nebulised salbutamol; two services provide salbutamol infusions (one requires doctor approval; one provides repeat boluses); five services provide nebulised ipratropium bromide; eight services provide corticosteroids (two restricted to intensive care paramedics (ICPs)); five services provide antihistamines for non-anaphylactic or post-anaphylactic reactions; four services provide glucagon (one requires doctor approval); magnesium is infused by ICPs in two services; 10 services allow unassisted intubation in anaphylactic arrest; one service allows ICPs to provide sedation-facilitated intubation or ketamine-only breathing intubation; eight services allow rapid sequence induction (two restricted to specialist roles).

Conclusion The JASs in Australasia have each created unique treatment clinical practice guidelines that are heterogeneous in their treatments and scopes of practice. A review of the evidence underlying each intervention is appropriate to determining best practice.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.