Andrew Christie1, Brenda Costa-Scorse2, Mike Nicholls3, Peter Jones3, Graham Howie4. 1. St John Ambulance, Auckland, New Zealand. 2. Discipline of Paramedicine, School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Environmental Science, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. 3. Emergency Department, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 4. Discipline of Paramedicine, School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Environmental Science, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. ghowie@aut.ac.nz.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to determine the agreement between paramedic and ED or hospital working diagnosis in dyspnoeic patients. METHODS: Non-consecutive written patient report forms were retrospectively audited for patients suffering from dyspnoea, who were transported to a tertiary hospital ED by ambulance paramedics. Accuracy of the paramedic working diagnosis was assessed by comparing agreement with either the primary or secondary ED diagnoses or hospital discharge diagnosis. RESULTS: The study cohort was 293 patients. Exact agreement between paramedic versus ED or hospital diagnosis was 64%, 95% CI 58-69, k = 0.58, 95% CI 0.52-0.64. Only 226 (77%) had a 'clearly documented' paramedic diagnosis. Among these, agreement with either ED or hospital diagnosis was 79%, and there was a trend towards more agreement as paramedic level of practice increased (74%, 78% and 87% for Basic, Intermediate and ALS paramedics, respectively, P = 0.07). Conversely, ALS paramedics were less likely to document a working diagnosis (30/98, 31%) compared with Intermediate (22/102, 23%) and BLS paramedics (15/93, 16%), P = 0.008. Diagnostic agreement varied according to medical condition, from anaphylaxis (100%) and asthma (86%) to acute pulmonary oedema (46%). CONCLUSIONS: There was moderate agreement between paramedic and ED or hospital diagnosis. The number of cases with no clearly documented working diagnosis suggested that a singular working diagnosis may not always serve the complexity of presentation of some dyspnoea patients: more open descriptors such as 'mixed disease' or 'atypical features' should be encouraged.
OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to determine the agreement between paramedic and ED or hospital working diagnosis in dyspnoeic patients. METHODS: Non-consecutive written patient report forms were retrospectively audited for patients suffering from dyspnoea, who were transported to a tertiary hospital ED by ambulance paramedics. Accuracy of the paramedic working diagnosis was assessed by comparing agreement with either the primary or secondary ED diagnoses or hospital discharge diagnosis. RESULTS: The study cohort was 293 patients. Exact agreement between paramedic versus ED or hospital diagnosis was 64%, 95% CI 58-69, k = 0.58, 95% CI 0.52-0.64. Only 226 (77%) had a 'clearly documented' paramedic diagnosis. Among these, agreement with either ED or hospital diagnosis was 79%, and there was a trend towards more agreement as paramedic level of practice increased (74%, 78% and 87% for Basic, Intermediate and ALS paramedics, respectively, P = 0.07). Conversely, ALS paramedics were less likely to document a working diagnosis (30/98, 31%) compared with Intermediate (22/102, 23%) and BLS paramedics (15/93, 16%), P = 0.008. Diagnostic agreement varied according to medical condition, from anaphylaxis (100%) and asthma (86%) to acute pulmonary oedema (46%). CONCLUSIONS: There was moderate agreement between paramedic and ED or hospital diagnosis. The number of cases with no clearly documented working diagnosis suggested that a singular working diagnosis may not always serve the complexity of presentation of some dyspnoeapatients: more open descriptors such as 'mixed disease' or 'atypical features' should be encouraged.
Authors: Gordon W Fuller; Steve Goodacre; Samuel Keating; Gavin Perkins; Matthew Ward; Andy Rosser; Imogen Gunson; Joshua Miller; Mike Bradburn; Praveen Thokala; Tim Harris; Andrew Carson; Maggie Marsh; Cindy Cooper Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2018-06-18
Authors: Gordon W Fuller; Steve Goodacre; Samuel Keating; Esther Herbert; Gavin Perkins; Matthew Ward; Andy Rosser; Imogen Gunson; Joshua Miller; Mike Bradburn; Tim Harris; Cindy Cooper Journal: Br Paramed J Date: 2020-12-01
Authors: Mariusz Celiński; Mateusz Cybulski; Joanna Fiłon; Marta Muszalik; Mariusz Goniewicz; Elżbieta Krajewska-Kułak; Anna Ślifirczyk Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Fay H Johnston; Farhad Salimi; Grant J Williamson; Sarah B Henderson; Jiayun Yao; Martine Dennekamp; Karen Smith; Michael J Abramson; Geoffrey G Morgan Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Rebecca E Cash; Robert A Swor; Margaret Samuels-Kalow; David Eisenbrey; Anjali J Kaimal; Carlos A Camargo Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 3.007