Literature DB >> 19499462

Information loss in emergency medical services handover of trauma patients.

Alix J E Carter1, Kimberly A Davis, Leigh V Evans, David C Cone.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about how effectively information is transferred from emergency medical services (EMS) personnel to clinicians in the emergency department receiving the patient. Information about prehospital events and findings can help ensure expedient and appropriate care. The trauma literature describes 16 prehospital data points that affect outcome and therefore should be included in the EMS report when applicable.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the degree to which information presented in the EMS trauma patient handover is degraded.
METHODS: At a level I trauma center, patients meeting criteria for the highest level of trauma team activation ("full trauma") were enrolled. As part of routine performance improvement, the physician leadership of the trauma program watched all available video-recorded full trauma responses, checking off whether the data points appropriate to the case were verbally "transmitted" by the EMS provider. Two EMS physicians then each independently reviewed the trauma team's chart notes for 50% of the sample (and a randomly selected 15% of the charts to assess agreement) and checked off whether the same elements were documented ("received") by the trauma team. The focus was on data elements that were "transmitted" but not "received."
RESULTS: In 96 patient handovers, a total of 473 elements were transmitted, of which 329 were received (69.6%). On the average chart, 72.9% of the transmitted items were received (95% confidence interval 69.0%-76.8%). The most commonly transmitted data elements were mechanism of injury (94 times), anatomic location of injury (81), and age (67). Prehospital hypotension was received in only 10 of the 28 times it was transmitted; prehospital Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score 10 of 22 times; and pulse rate 13 of 49 times.
CONCLUSIONS: Even in the controlled setting of a single-patient handover with direct verbal contact between EMS providers and in-hospital clinicians, only 72.9% of the key prehospital data points that were transmitted by the EMS personnel were documented by the receiving hospital staff. Elements such as prehospital hypotension, GCS score, and other prehospital vital signs were often not recorded. Methods of "transmitting" and "receiving" data in trauma as well as all other patients need further scrutiny.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19499462     DOI: 10.1080/10903120802706260

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


  26 in total

1.  Emergency Medical Services Perspectives on Identifying and Reporting Victims of Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Self-Neglect.

Authors:  Tony Rosen; Cynthia Lien; Michael E Stern; Elizabeth M Bloemen; Regina Mysliwiec; Thomas J McCarthy; Sunday Clark; Mary R Mulcare; Daniel S Ribaudo; Mark S Lachs; Karl Pillemer; Neal E Flomenbaum
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 1.484

2.  [Safer anesthesia and duty hour limits: are handovers of personnel allowed?]

Authors:  Christina Massoth; Melanie Meersch
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  Operative length independently affected by surgical team size: data from 2 Canadian hospitals.

Authors:  Bin Zheng; Ormond N M Panton; Thamer A Al-Tayeb
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.089

4.  Accuracy of emergency medical services-reported last known normal times in patients suspected with acute stroke.

Authors:  David Curfman; Lisa Tabor Connor; Hawnwan Philip Moy; Laura Heitsch; Peter Panagos; Jin-Moo Lee; David K Tan; Andria L Ford
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 7.914

5.  Adaptation of a postoperative handoff communication process for children with heart disease: a quantitative study.

Authors:  Jerome Gene Chen; Melanie C Wright; Phillip Brian Smith; James Jaggers; Kshitij P Mistry
Journal:  Am J Med Qual       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 1.852

6.  Feasibility Assessment of a Pre-Hospital Automated Sensing Clinical Documentation System.

Authors:  Sean M Bloos; Candace D McNaughton; Joseph R Coco; Laurie L Novak; Julie A Adams; Robert E Bodenheimer; Jesse M Ehrenfeld; Jamison R Heard; Richard A Paris; Christopher L Simpson; Deirdre M Scully; Daniel Fabbri
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2020-03-04

Review 7.  The performance and assessment of hospital trauma teams.

Authors:  Andrew Georgiou; David J Lockey
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2010-12-13       Impact factor: 2.953

8.  Exclusion of context knowledge in the development of prehospital guidelines: results produced by realistic evaluation.

Authors:  Magnus Andersson Hagiwara; Bjorn-Ove Suserud; Anders Jonsson; Maria Henricson
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2013-06-22       Impact factor: 2.953

9.  Network analysis of team communication in a busy emergency department.

Authors:  P Daniel Patterson; Anthony J Pfeiffer; Matthew D Weaver; David Krackhardt; Robert M Arnold; Donald M Yealy; Judith R Lave
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-03-22       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Usage of documented pre-hospital observations in secondary care: a questionnaire study and retrospective comparison of records.

Authors:  Geir O Knutsen; Knut Fredriksen
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 2.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.