Literature DB >> 16531606

Reasons why patients choose an ambulance and willingness to consider alternatives.

Lalena M Yarris1, Raymond Moreno, Terri A Schmidt, Annette L Adams, Heather S Brooks.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To test a hypothesis that patients would accept alternatives to transport to an emergency department (ED) by ambulance and to evaluate factors related to patient willingness to consider alternatives. Concerns about resource utilization have prompted emergency medical services (EMS) systems to explore alternatives to ambulance transport to an ED, but studies have evaluated the safety of alternatives, not patient preferences.
METHODS: Trained research assistants surveyed patients transported by ambulance to a university ED. Interfacility transfers, trauma patients, and critically ill patients were excluded. The primary outcome was willingness to accept one of several presented alternatives to ambulance transport to the ED for that visit. Demographic and clinical factors were evaluated for association with willingness to consider alternatives. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were determined by using Mantel-Haenszel stratified methods.
RESULTS: Three hundred fifteen subjects completed the survey. Two hundred forty-seven (78.4%) were willing to consider at least one alternative. One hundred ninety-four (61.6%) were willing to consider transportation by car, and 177 (56.2%) were willing to consider transportation by taxi. Factors associated with willingness to consider alternatives included the following: age 18-65 years (RR, 1.25; 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.49), being unemployed (RR, 1.08; 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.33), use of the ED for routine care (RR, 1.25; 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.35), and not being admitted to the hospital (RR, 1.19; 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.40). Race, gender, health insurance status, and EMS interventions en route were not associated with willingness to consider transportation alternatives.
CONCLUSIONS: Many patients transported by ambulance to an ED would have considered an alternative, if one were offered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16531606     DOI: 10.1197/j.aem.2005.11.079

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  6 in total

1.  Prehospital triage, discrepancy in priority-setting between emergency medical dispatch centre and ambulance crews.

Authors:  A Khorram-Manesh; K Lennquist Montán; A Hedelin; M Kihlgren; P Örtenwall
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2010-05-04       Impact factor: 3.693

2.  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

3.  Emergency department in hospitals, a window of the world: A preliminary comparison between Australia and China.

Authors:  Xiang-Yu Hou; Kevin Chu
Journal:  World J Emerg Med       Date:  2010

Review 4.  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

5.  Assessment of Inadequate Use of Pediatric Emergency Medical Transport Services: The Pediatric Emergency and Ambulance Critical Evaluation (PEACE) Study.

Authors:  Martin Poryo; Martin Burger; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Bennet Ziegler; Harald Sauer; Marina Flotats-Bastardas; Ulrich Grundmann; Michael Zemlin; Sascha Meyer
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2019-10-25       Impact factor: 3.418

6.  What is known about the quality of out-of-hospital emergency medical services in the Arabian Gulf States? A systematic review.

Authors:  H N Moafa; S M J van Kuijk; G H L M Franssen; M E Moukhyer; H R Haak
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.