Literature DB >> 19731166

Paramedic determinations of medical necessity: a meta-analysis.

Lawrence H Brown1, Michael W Hubble, David C Cone, Michael G Millin, Brian Schwartz, P Daniel Patterson, Brad Greenberg, Michael E Richards.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Reducing unnecessary ambulance transports may have operational and economic benefits for emergency medical services (EMS) agencies and receiving emergency departments. However, no consensus exists on the ability of paramedics to accurately and safely identify patients who do not require ambulance transport. Objective. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated studies reporting U.S. paramedics' ability to determine medical necessity of ambulance transport.
METHODS: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Library databases were searched using Cochrane Prehospital and Emergency Care Field search terms combined with the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms "triage"; "utilization review"; "health services misuse"; "severity of illness index," and "trauma severity indices." Two reviewers independently evaluated each title to identify relevant studies; each abstract then underwent independent review to identify studies requiring full appraisal. Inclusion criteria were original research; emergency responses; determinations of medical necessity by U.S. paramedics; and a reference standard comparison. The primary outcome measure of interest was the negative predictive value (NPV) of paramedic determinations. For studies reporting sufficient data, agreement between paramedic and reference standard determinations was measured using kappa; sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were also calculated.
RESULTS: From 9,752 identified titles, 214 abstracts were evaluated, with 61 studies selected for full review. Five studies met the inclusion criteria (interrater reliability, kappa = 0.75). Reference standards included physician opinion (n = 3), hospital admission (n = 1), and a composite of physician opinion and patient clinical circumstances (n = 1). The NPV ranged from 0.610 to 0.997. Results lacked homogeneity across studies; meta-analysis using a random-effects model produced an aggregate NPV of 0.912 (95% confidence interval: 0.707-0.978). Only two studies reported complete 2 x 2 data: kappa was 0.105 and 0.427; sensitivity was 0.992 and 0.841; specificity was 0.356 and 0.581; and PPV was 0.158 and 0.823.
CONCLUSION: The results of the few studies evaluating U.S. paramedic determinations of medical necessity for ambulance transport vary considerably, and only two studies report complete data. The aggregate NPV of the paramedic determinations is 0.91, with a lower confidence limit of 0.71. These data do not support the practice of paramedics' determining whether patients require ambulance transport. These findings have implications for EMS systems, emergency departments, and third-party payers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19731166     DOI: 10.1080/10903120903144809

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


  14 in total

1.  How Well Do EMS Providers Predict Intracranial Hemorrhage in Head-Injured Older Adults?

Authors:  Simson Hon; Samuel D Gaona; Mark Faul; James F Holmes; Daniel K Nishijima
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 3.077

2.  Validation of triage criteria for deciding which apparently inebriated persons require emergency department care.

Authors:  Keith Flower; Anneke Post; Jeremy Sussman; Niels Tangherlini; John Mendelson; Mark J Pletcher
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2010-07-08       Impact factor: 2.740

3.  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

4.  Prehospital Trauma Triage Decision-making: A Model of What Happens between the 9-1-1 Call and the Hospital.

Authors:  Courtney Marie Cora Jones; Jeremy T Cushman; E Brooke Lerner; Susan G Fisher; Christopher L Seplaki; Peter J Veazie; Erin B Wasserman; Ann Dozier; Manish N Shah
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 3.077

5.  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

Review 6.  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

7.  Physiological-social scores in predicting outcomes of prehospital internal patients.

Authors:  Abbasali Ebrahimian; Hesam Seyedin; Roohangiz Jamshidi-Orak; Gholamreza Masoumi
Journal:  Emerg Med Int       Date:  2014-09-14       Impact factor: 1.112

8.  Telehealth-Enabled Emergency Medical Services Program Reduces Ambulance Transport to Urban Emergency Departments.

Authors:  James R Langabeer; Michael Gonzalez; Diaa Alqusairi; Tiffany Champagne-Langabeer; Adria Jackson; Jennifer Mikhail; David Persse
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2016-09-06

9.  Exploring Factors Affecting Emergency Medical Services Staffs' Decision about Transporting Medical Patients to Medical Facilities.

Authors:  Abbasali Ebrahimian; Hesam Seyedin; Roohangiz Jamshidi-Orak; Gholamreza Masoumi
Journal:  Emerg Med Int       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 1.112

10.  Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Pre-hospital Medical Emergencies Early Warning Scale.

Authors:  Abbasali Ebrahimian; Gholamreza Masoumi; Roohangiz Jamshidi-Orak; Hesam Seyedin
Journal:  Indian J Crit Care Med       Date:  2017-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.