Literature DB >> 10895919

Can current EMS dispatch protocols identify layperson-reported sentinel conditions?

K W Neely1, J Eldurkar, M E Drake.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Managed care organizations are seeking opportunities to capitate for emergency medical services (EMS). These and others pressures are motivating EMS planners to find innovative ways to redeploy existing EMS resources. A successful redeployment of resources implies a mechanism for more carefully matching EMS resources to need than currently exists.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the methods dispatchers currently use to assign nature codes (NCs) and severity codes (SCs) also can distinguish between patients with important sentinel conditions and those without.
METHODS: This was a six-month prospective study (June to November 1997). Portland Fire Bureau (PFB) paramedic units documented dispatcher-assigned NCs and SCs and the presence or absence of study-established sentinel findings. The PFB paramedics also verified or corrected dispatcher-assigned NCs and SCs using dispatch algorithms identical to those in use at this urban dispatch center. Cross-tabulation tables (SPSS version 6.1) with chi-square statistics were established to illustrate the relationship between SC strata within specific NCs and the presence or absence of sentinel findings.
RESULTS: One thousand two hundred eighty-five usable cases fell into 25 unique NCs. The designation SC 1 (emergent) was assigned by the dispatcher 307 (24%) times, SC 3 (urgent) was assigned 907 (71%) times, and SC 9 (neither emergent nor urgent) was assigned 26 (2%) times. The SC was missing 45 (3%) times. The PFB records were matched to 1,040 (82%) dispatch records. Sentinel conditions were identified in 411 (40%) of these cases. Eight (32%) of 25 NCs were stratified into two or more levels of dispatcher-determined SCs. One cross-tabulation table for each of these eight NCs was developed to display the relationship between SC strata and the presence or absence of a sentinel condition. Five tables produced statistically significant chi-square tables (p < 0.05). None achieved the study-specified level of 95% sensitivity.
CONCLUSION: Current dispatcher-assigned NCs and SCs do not appear adequate to detect callers with study-developed sentinel criteria.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10895919     DOI: 10.1080/10903120090941263

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care        ISSN: 1090-3127            Impact factor:   3.077


  6 in total

1.  Prediction of critical illness during out-of-hospital emergency care.

Authors:  Christopher W Seymour; Jeremy M Kahn; Colin R Cooke; Timothy R Watkins; Susan R Heckbert; Thomas D Rea
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  The epidemiology of medical emergency contacts outside hospitals in Norway--a prospective population based study.

Authors:  Erik Zakariassen; Robert Anders Burman; Steinar Hunskaar
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2010-02-18       Impact factor: 2.953

3.  Pre-resuscitation lactate and hospital mortality in prehospital patients.

Authors:  Adam Z Tobias; Francis X Guyette; Christopher W Seymour; Brian P Suffoletto; Christian Martin-Gill; Jorge Quintero; Jeffrey Kristan; Clifton W Callaway; Donald M Yealy
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 3.077

4.  Detailed analysis of prehospital interventions in medical priority dispatch system determinants.

Authors:  Karl A Sporer; Nicholas J Johnson
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2011-02

5.  Adaptation and promotion of emergency medical service transportation for climate change.

Authors:  Chih-Long Pan; Chun-Wen Chiu; Jet-Chau Wen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 1.889

6.  Live video footage from scene to aid helicopter emergency medical service dispatch: a feasibility study.

Authors:  E Ter Avest; E Lambert; R de Coverly; H Tucker; J Griggs; M H Wilson; A Ghorbangholi; J Williams; R M Lyon
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 2.953

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.