H A Snooks1, N Kearsley, J Dale, M Halter, J Redhead, J Foster. 1. Centre for Health Improvement Research and Evaluation, School of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK. h.a.snooks@swansea.ac.uk
Abstract
AIM: To describe emergency ambulance crews' views about (1) how they make decisions on whether to convey patients to hospital; (2) an intervention enabling them to triage patients to non-conveyance; and (3) their experience of using new protocols for undertaking such triage. METHODS: Two focus groups were held at the outset of an evaluation of Treat and Refer (T&R) protocols: one with staff based at an ambulance station who were to implement the new service (intervention station), and the other with staff from a neighbouring station who would be continuing their normal practice during the study (control station). A third session was held with staff from the intervention station following training and 3 months' experience of protocol usage. RESULTS: Before the introduction of the T&R protocols, crews reported experience, intuition, training, time of call during shift, patient preference, and home situation as influencing their decisions concerning conveyance. Crews were positive about changing practice but foresaw difficulties with advising patients who wanted to go to hospital, and with referral to other agencies. Following experience of T&R protocol use, crews felt they had needed more training than had been provided. Some felt their practice and job satisfaction had improved. Problems with referral and with persuading some patients that they did not need to go to hospital were discussed. There was consensus that the initiative should be introduced across the service. CONCLUSIONS: With crews generally positive about this intervention, an opportunity to tackle this difficult area of emergency care now exists. This study has, however, highlighted the complexity of the change in practice and service delivery, and professional and organisational constraints that need to be considered.
AIM: To describe emergency ambulance crews' views about (1) how they make decisions on whether to convey patients to hospital; (2) an intervention enabling them to triage patients to non-conveyance; and (3) their experience of using new protocols for undertaking such triage. METHODS: Two focus groups were held at the outset of an evaluation of Treat and Refer (T&R) protocols: one with staff based at an ambulance station who were to implement the new service (intervention station), and the other with staff from a neighbouring station who would be continuing their normal practice during the study (control station). A third session was held with staff from the intervention station following training and 3 months' experience of protocol usage. RESULTS: Before the introduction of the T&R protocols, crews reported experience, intuition, training, time of call during shift, patient preference, and home situation as influencing their decisions concerning conveyance. Crews were positive about changing practice but foresaw difficulties with advising patients who wanted to go to hospital, and with referral to other agencies. Following experience of T&R protocol use, crews felt they had needed more training than had been provided. Some felt their practice and job satisfaction had improved. Problems with referral and with persuading some patients that they did not need to go to hospital were discussed. There was consensus that the initiative should be introduced across the service. CONCLUSIONS: With crews generally positive about this intervention, an opportunity to tackle this difficult area of emergency care now exists. This study has, however, highlighted the complexity of the change in practice and service delivery, and professional and organisational constraints that need to be considered.
Authors: Helen Snooks; Rebecca Anthony; Robin Chatters; Wai-Yee Cheung; Jeremy Dale; Rachael Donohoe; Sarah Gaze; Mary Halter; Marina Koniotou; Phillippa Logan; Ronan Lyons; Suzanne Mason; Jon Nicholl; Ceri Phillips; Judith Phillips; Ian Russell; A Niroshan Siriwardena; Mushtaq Wani; Alan Watkins; Richard Whitfield; Lynsey Wilson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Deborah Shaw; Jane V Dyas; Jo Middlemass; Anne Spaight; Maureen Briggs; Sarah Christopher; A Niroshan Siriwardena Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2006-09-19
Authors: Remco H A Ebben; Lilian C M Vloet; Renate F Speijers; Nico W Tönjes; Jorik Loef; Thomas Pelgrim; Margreet Hoogeveen; Sivera A A Berben Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Helen Snooks; Wai-Yee Cheung; Jacqueline Close; Jeremy Dale; Sarah Gaze; Ioan Humphreys; Ronan Lyons; Suzanne Mason; Yasmin Merali; Julie Peconi; Ceri Phillips; Judith Phillips; Stephen Roberts; Ian Russell; Antonio Sánchez; Mushtaq Wani; Bridget Wells; Richard Whitfield Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2010-01-26
Authors: Sherwin E Phillips; Pamela S Gaskin; David Byer; W L Cadogan; Andrew Brathwaite; Anders L Nielsen Journal: Emerg Med Int Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 1.112
Authors: Helen Anne Snooks; Ben Carter; Jeremy Dale; Theresa Foster; Ioan Humphreys; Philippa Anne Logan; Ronan Anthony Lyons; Suzanne Margaret Mason; Ceri James Phillips; Antonio Sanchez; Mushtaq Wani; Alan Watkins; Bridget Elizabeth Wells; Richard Whitfield; Ian Trevor Russell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 3.240