BACKGROUND: Although the Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS) is widely used by emergency medical services (EMS) dispatchers to determine dispatch priority, there is little evidence that it reflects patient acuity. The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) is a standard patient acuity scale widely used by Canadian emergency departments and EMS systems to prioritize patient care requirements. OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between MPDS dispatch priority and out-of-hospital CTAS. METHODS: All emergency calls on a large urban EMS communications database for a one-year period were obtained. Duplicate calls, nonemergency transfers, and canceled calls were excluded. Sensitivity and specificity to detect high-acuity illness, as well as positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), were calculated for all protocols. RESULTS: Of 197,882 calls, 102,582 met inclusion criteria. The overall sensitivity of MPDS was 68.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 67.8% to 68.5%), with a specificity of 66.2% (95% CI = 65.7% to 66.7%). The most sensitive protocol for detecting high acuity of illness was the breathing-problem protocol, with a sensitivity of 100.0% (95% CI = 99.9% to 100.0%), whereas the most specific protocol was the one for psychiatric problems, with a specificity of 98.1% (95% CI = 97.5% to 98.7%). The cardiac-arrest protocol had the highest PPV (92.6%, 95% CI = 90.3% to 94.3%), whereas the convulsions protocol had the highest NPV (85.9%, 95% CI = 84.5% to 87.2%). The best-performing protocol overall was the cardiac-arrest protocol, and the protocol with the overall poorest performance was the one for unknown problems. Sixteen of the 32 protocols performed no better than chance alone at identifying high-acuity patients. CONCLUSIONS: The Medical Priority Dispatch System exhibits at least moderate sensitivity and specificity for detecting high acuity of illness or injury. This performance analysis may be used to identify target protocols for future improvements.
BACKGROUND: Although the Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS) is widely used by emergency medical services (EMS) dispatchers to determine dispatch priority, there is little evidence that it reflects patient acuity. The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) is a standard patient acuity scale widely used by Canadian emergency departments and EMS systems to prioritize patient care requirements. OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between MPDS dispatch priority and out-of-hospital CTAS. METHODS: All emergency calls on a large urban EMS communications database for a one-year period were obtained. Duplicate calls, nonemergency transfers, and canceled calls were excluded. Sensitivity and specificity to detect high-acuity illness, as well as positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), were calculated for all protocols. RESULTS: Of 197,882 calls, 102,582 met inclusion criteria. The overall sensitivity of MPDS was 68.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 67.8% to 68.5%), with a specificity of 66.2% (95% CI = 65.7% to 66.7%). The most sensitive protocol for detecting high acuity of illness was the breathing-problem protocol, with a sensitivity of 100.0% (95% CI = 99.9% to 100.0%), whereas the most specific protocol was the one for psychiatric problems, with a specificity of 98.1% (95% CI = 97.5% to 98.7%). The cardiac-arrest protocol had the highest PPV (92.6%, 95% CI = 90.3% to 94.3%), whereas the convulsions protocol had the highest NPV (85.9%, 95% CI = 84.5% to 87.2%). The best-performing protocol overall was the cardiac-arrest protocol, and the protocol with the overall poorest performance was the one for unknown problems. Sixteen of the 32 protocols performed no better than chance alone at identifying high-acuity patients. CONCLUSIONS: The Medical Priority Dispatch System exhibits at least moderate sensitivity and specificity for detecting high acuity of illness or injury. This performance analysis may be used to identify target protocols for future improvements.
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
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
Authors: Brian H Buck; Sidney Starkman; Marc Eckstein; Chelsea S Kidwell; Jill Haines; Rainy Huang; Daniel Colby; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 7.914