Literature DB >> 10353041

Who calls 999 and why? A survey of the emergency workload of the London Ambulance Service.

C R Victor1, J L Peacock, C Chazot, S Walsh, D Holmes.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 1996-97 there were 623,000 emergency (999) calls made to the London Ambulance Service (LAS) and this represents a 30% increase over the previous five years. The reasons for this increase, which is also observed nationally, remain unknown. It has been suggested that some callers may be using the 999 service "inappropriately" but no data are available from the ambulance service.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the workload of the emergency ambulance service in London with specific reference to the nature and characteristics of 999 calls, to determine who dials 999 and why, and to establish the number and types of calls that could most appropriately be dealt with by other agencies.
DESIGN: A one week census of all emergency calls responded to by the LAS.
SETTING: Sixty eight LAS stations.
METHODS: Collation of all routine LAS incident forms (LA4) including the classification of the crews' free text description of the incident. This was supplemented by a detailed workload questionnaire for 25% of calls.
RESULTS: There were 10,921 calls responded to from 29 April to 5 May 1996. The census showed that the daily number of calls was highest on Saturday and lowest on Wednesday with about half being made during normal general practitioner (GP) working hours. Half of all calls were for women and one third were for people aged > or = 65. Accidents were the commonest type of incident (24%). The remainder comprised various medical conditions such as respiratory, cardiac, and obstetric problems. In 1.5% of calls there was no illness, injury, or assistance required and 5% were for "general assistance" and mostly concerned people aged > or = 65. The workload survey indicated that two thirds of incidents occurred at home and 70% of callers had not tried to contact a GP before dialing 999. In the professional opinion of the responding crew, 60% of calls required a 999 response, with the remainder thought more appropriately dealt with by other services such as primary care, psychiatric services, and social services.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that while the majority of 999 calls were "appropriate", part of the 999 workload could be dealt with by other services. More research is required to clarify why people contact the 999 service for non-emergency incidents and also to establish the views of GPs and other agencies as to the role and function of the IAS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10353041      PMCID: PMC1343328          DOI: 10.1136/emj.16.3.174

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Accid Emerg Med        ISSN: 1351-0622


  6 in total

1.  Accidents, emergencies, and ambulances: a survey in Portsmouth.

Authors:  W N Boughey
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1968-02-10

2.  The use and abuse of the emergency ambulance service: some of the factors affecting the decision whether to call an emergency ambulance.

Authors:  G J Gardner
Journal:  Arch Emerg Med       Date:  1990-06

3.  Prioritisation of ambulance response.

Authors:  L Williams; T Stephenson
Journal:  J Accid Emerg Med       Date:  1996-05

4.  What is under a blue flashing light? Community expressed need for the emergency ambulance service.

Authors:  E Pugh
Journal:  Community Med       Date:  1985-08

5.  Is the emergency ambulance service abused?

Authors:  D L Morris; A B Cross
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1980-07-12

6.  Changing patterns in accident and emergency attenders.

Authors:  A Wass; N Zoltie
Journal:  J Accid Emerg Med       Date:  1996-07
  6 in total
  11 in total

1.  Changes in the emergency workload of the London Ambulance Service between 1989 and 1999.

Authors:  P J Peacock; J L Peacock; C R Victor; C Chazot
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.740

2.  Ambulance alerting to hospital: the need for clearer guidance.

Authors:  E Brown; A Bleetman
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.740

3.  Emergency (999) calls to the ambulance service that do not result in the patient being transported to hospital: an epidemiological study.

Authors:  P J Marks; T D Daniel; O Afolabi; G Spiers; J S Nguyen-Van-Tam
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.740

4.  Results of an evaluation of the effectiveness of triage and direct transportation to minor injuries units by ambulance crews.

Authors:  H Snooks; T Foster; J Nicholl
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.740

5.  Emergency ambulances on the public highway linked with inconvenience and potential danger to road users.

Authors:  G Saunders; A Gough
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 2.740

6.  Emergency ambulance dispatch: is there a case for triage?

Authors:  S Thakore; E A McGugan; W Morrison
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 18.000

Review 7.  Why do patients with 'primary care sensitive' problems access ambulance services? A systematic mapping review of the literature.

Authors:  Matthew J Booker; Ali R G Shaw; Sarah Purdy
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Influence of socioeconomic factors on medically unnecessary ambulance calls.

Authors:  Chihiro Kawakami; Kenji Ohshige; Katsuaki Kubota; Osamu Tochikubo
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-07-27       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Swedish emergency medical services' identification of potential candidates for primary healthcare: Retrospective patient record study.

Authors:  Gabriella Norberg; Birgitta Wireklint Sundström; Lennart Christensson; Maria Nyström; Johan Herlitz
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2015-12-03       Impact factor: 2.581

10.  Factors influencing the decision to convey or not to convey elderly people to the emergency department after emergency ambulance attendance: a systematic mixed studies review.

Authors:  Johan Oosterwold; Dennis Sagel; Sivera Berben; Petrie Roodbol; Manda Broekhuis
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-08-30       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.