| Literature DB >> 30166299 |
Johan Oosterwold1,2, Dennis Sagel3, Sivera Berben4,5,6, Petrie Roodbol1, Manda Broekhuis7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The decision over whether to convey after emergency ambulance attendance plays a vital role in preventing avoidable admissions to a hospital's emergency department (ED). This is especially important with the elderly, for whom the likelihood and frequency of adverse events are greatest.Entities:
Keywords: aged; conveyance/non-conveyance; decision making; emergency medical service; mixed atudies review
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30166299 PMCID: PMC6119414 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021732
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Characteristics of included studies
| Lead author (year), country | Aim | Method | Study population | Quality appraisal MMAT score */**** | Short overall | ||||
| Setting | EMS staff (n) | Professional | Patients (n) | Age range or mean (SD) of patients | Specific elderly population | ||||
| Aftyka | To compare the actions and referral decisions of nurses and paramedics taken in the field. | QUAN—retrospective observational study. Analysis of ambulance records. | n=992 | Pmedics, n=555; RN, n=437. | n=1082 | 0>90 years. | No | ** | Methodological and statistical inconsistencies, making the results and conclusions difficult to interpret. Lacks a statistical power analysis. |
| Alicandro | To evaluate the effect of a documentation checklist and online medical control contact on EMS conveyance decisions in patients refusing medical assistance. | QUAN—non-randomised controlled trial. Prospective sequential intervention study. | ND | Volunteer, ALS providers, BLS providers. | n=361 | No | * | Small sample size and the absence of a power calculation; no data on patient enrolment, unclear if all eligible patients were enrolled; results obtained in volunteer EMS, with both BLS and ALS personnel. Generalisability in non-volunteer EMS unclear. | |
| Burrell | To examine the decision-making process of ambulance clinicians in situations of epilepsy. | QUAL—phenomenological study. Face-to-face and topic-guided interviews. | n=15 | Pmedic, n=5; EMT 2, n=1; EMT 3, n=4; EmCP, n=1; PTL, n=4. | NA | NA | No | *** | Convenience sample may have led to selection bias. No information on saturation in order to determine the qualitative sample size. Awareness of the impact of doing interviews by a colleague. |
| Burstein | To measure the effect of physician assertiveness on EMS conveyance decisions of patients attempted refusal of medical assistance. | QUAN—cohort study. Prospective analysis of different outcome variables. | ND | Volunteer, ALS providers, BLS providers. | n=130 | ND | No | *** | No table of patient characteristics included; instrument for measuring assertiveness not validated; the sample was aware of being studied which may cause bias. Generalisability in non-volunteer EMS unclear. |
| Cooper | To evaluate the role of emergency care practitioners on the conveyance decision and compare that with the paramedics. | MM—sequential explanatory design. Two stages of data collection: (1) retrospective data analysis, (2) individual and focus groups interviews with ECPs, Pmedics, managers and other staff members. | n=15 | ECP, n=4; Pmedic, n=11; ECP and Pmedics mean work experience=8 years. | n=692; | 0–99 | No | *** | No statistical comparison between ECPs and Pmedics in terms of years of experience. ECPs treated more patients under the age of 16 years compared with the Pmedics (p=0.001). |
| Ebrahimian | To explore factors affecting EMS staff’s decision about conveyance to medical facilities. | QUAL—phenomenological study. Content analysis with semistructured interviews. | n=18 (males) | Diploma medical emergency (2-year course) or nursing (4-year course). Age: 28–39 years (min–max). Mean work experience=6.61 years. | NA | NA | No | *** | Brief description of demographic profile of the respondents. Lack of intercoder reliability which is a crucial component in content analysis. External validity may be impaired because of non-Western culture/country. |
| Halter | To clarify the EMS conveyance decisions, after the use of a clinical assessment tool, in older people who have a fall. | QUAL—phenomenological study. Semistructured interview. | n=12 (7 females, 5 males) | Pmedic, n=1; EMT, n=11. Mean work experience =3.5 years. | ND | ND | Yes, elderly fallers | **** | Convenience sample with low experience level of EMS staff. |
| O’Hara | To explore systemic influences on decision-making by paramedics relating to care transitions to identify potential risk factors. | QUAL—multimethod study including a ethnographic study. Two phases of data collection: (1) semistructured interviews, (2) observation, digital diaries, focus groups. | n=88 | Pmedic, n=57; SP, n=13; EMT, n=18. Experience EMS staff, <1–20 years. | NA | NA | No | *** | Selection on participants is unclear, no information on sampling. |
| Persse | To determine if providing follow-up information about non-conveyed elderly patients would change the future decision-making by paramedics. | QUAN—prospective chart review (descriptive study) | NA | Pmedic’s | n=260 | ≥65 years of age | Yes, patients | ** | Demographic information comparing groups in phase 1, 2 and 3 is missing. Differences between groups may account for any differences in outcomes. Less than 60% being contacted after non-conveyance. No power calculation. |
| Murphy-Jones | To explore how Pmedics make conveyance decisions in end-of-life care situations. | QUAL—phenomenological study. Semistructured interviews. | n=6 (3 females,3 males) | Pmedics age, 24–42 years. Work experience range 2–8 years. | NA | ND | Yes, nursing | *** | Small sample size (n=6). Unknown if data saturation is reached. Working experience of Pmedics ≤8 years. |
| Schaefer | To determine if EMS staff could decrease the rate of conveyance to the ED, in patients with no urgent concerns, by identifying and safely triaging them to alternate care destinations. | QUAN—cohort study. Matched historical control group. | ND | EMT and BLS training. Pmedic and ALS training. | n=3633; | Range, 0–104, | No | **** | Study took place within BLS response teams. One physician determined the eligibility for alternate destination of care based on predefined criteria. No level of agreement between physicians was measured. The significant difference in destination of care should be interpreted with caution because of the non-randomised study design. |
| Snooks | To evaluate the effectiveness of ‘treat and refer’ protocols. | QUAN—controlled trial without randomisation. Run sheet analysis and analysis of ED and GP records. Follow-up questionnaire of non-conveyed patients. | ND | Pmedics and EMTs | INT, n=788 CON, | Mean age, | No | **** | Power calculation was conducted but was reduced because of lower recruitment to study groups than anticipated. No table of patient characteristics, data reported in text. |
| Snooks | To report the views and attitudes of EMS staff in conveyance decision-making in and in a new triage intervention on for non-conveyance. | QUAL—Phenomenological study focus groups. | n=21 (20 males,1 female) | Duration of service, mean (range in years): Focus group 1, 7 (4–16); Focus group 2, 12 (0.5–25); Focus group 3, 8 (4–16). | NA | NA | No | *** | Brief description on qualitative data analysis/coding procedure. |
| Snooks | To investigate the effectiveness of a computerised clinical decision support tool for emergency paramedics in conveyance decisions of older people who have fallen. | QUAN—cluster randomised controlled trial. | n=42 | Pmedic’s. | INT, n=436 CON, | ≥65 years. | Yes, older people who have fallen. | *** | Study is slightly underpowered. |
| Stuhlmiller | To assess the ability of EMS to determine medical decision-making capacity and in obtaining an informed refusal of transport. | QUAN—retrospective observational study. Analysis of run sheets, non-transport worksheets and associated recorded refusal calls. | ND | Pmedics and online medical command physicians. | n=137 | 45.9 (22.6), | No | *** | Calls randomly generated. |
| Vilke | To obtain information and experiences of patients (≥65 years of age) who refused transport by EMS and determine the potential role of online physician–patient contact. | QUAN—prospective observational study, telephone survey and ambulance records analysis. | NA | EMT-Ps, EMT-Ds. | n=100 | 72.2 (6.4) | Yes, patients aged ≥65 and signed out against medical advice. | ** | Telephone survey with possibility of reporting bias. Of the total sample population, 16% of the patients were reached by telephone and agreed (100/636). Data collection tool was not validated. |
| Waldron | To determine if there is an association between EMT gender and the patients decision to refuse conveyance to the hospital by ambulance. | QUAN—case–control study. Retrospective ambulance records analysis. | n=322 Male/male=271 Male/female and female/female=51 | EMT-Bs, EMT-Ps. | Refusing medical aid, | Non-refusal, | No | *** | Data on association and refusal of medical aid rate retrieved after propensity score matching to control for variables. |
| Waldrop | To explore and describe how EMS staff assess and manage end-of-life emergency calls. | QUAL—phenomenology in-depth interviews. | n=43, 77% males | Pmedic, n=33; EMTs, n=10; age, 21–65 years, mean 39 (SD11). | NA | NA | No | *** | Rigour or the trustworthiness of qualitative data analysis is described. Researcher–participant relationship unclear. |
| Waldrop | To identify how EMS providers deal with end of life calls and determine their perceived confidence in managing these situations, and perspectives on improved preparation. | QUAL—cross-sectional survey. Questionnaire. | n=178, 79% males | 76 EMT-B, 102 Pmedic. Mean years of working experience 12 (SD 9.5). | NA | NA | No | *** | Power analyses was not conducted. Participants were invited to be interviewed. |
| Zorab | To identify how EMS staff assess health information; ascertain if a lack of information could lead to a suboptimal care pathway; explore whether increasing amount of information leads to a more appropriate pathway. | QUAL—cross-sectional survey. Online questionnaire. | n=302, 63% males | EmCP or CCP n=36 Pmedic, n=185 EmCA, student UP, n=58. Most respondents (85.6%) were aged between 26 and 55 years. | NA | NA | No | *** | Response rate of 12%. |
| Déziel | To identify any differences in the transport decision among agency ownership types. | QUAN— retrospective observational study. | NA | Fire-based EMS. Non-fire based EMS. Private organisation non-profit. Private organisation for-profit. | 4.6 million | Mean age | No | **** | Very large dataset. |
| Langabeer | To compare the effectiveness of an alternative EMS telehealth delivery model relative to traditional EMS care. | QUAN—observational case–control study. | NA | NA | n=287 | Mdn age, | No | *** | Case–control study, controls are matched afterwards. Control group not matched on inclusion criteria but on demographic data. |
| Larrson | To examine early prehospital assessment of non-urgent patients and its impact on the choice of the appropriate level of care. | QUAN—exploratory study based on a consecutive and retrospective review of patient records. | ND | Ambulance nurses. | INT, n=184 CON, n=210 | Aged ≥18 years. | No | **** | Comparison with retrospective control group. |
| Noble | To explore the experiences of EMS staff managing patients with seizures. | QUAL—semi structured interviews. | n=19 | Pmedic, n=19. | NA | NA | No | **** | Independent and experienced interviewer with already validated topic tool. |
| Porter | To examine EMS staff’s view on how decision-making about non-conveyance works in practice. | QUAL—three focus-group interviews using a topic guide. | n=25 | Pmedics, n=25. | NA | NA | No | *** | Short and compromised method section. Degree of independence between researcher and group unclear. |
| Simpson | To explore the decision-making process used by paramedics when caring for older fallers. | QUAL—grounded theory methodology. Semistructured interviews and focus groups. | n=33 (21 males, 12 females) | QP=16, ICP=11, ECP=6 | NA | NA | Yes, older people who have fallen. | **** | Data analysis and coding were done by one single researcher (also paramedic), but subjectivity was regularly checked during the analysis and challenged by members of the research team. |
| Snooks | To determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of a paramedic protocol for the care of older people who fall. | QUAN—cluster randomised trial. | n=215 | Pmedics, n=215. | INT, n=2391 | INT 82.54 (7.97) | Yes, aged≥65 years. | **** | Self-reported outcome results should be interpreted with caution. Response rate was very low, with high risk of selection bias. |
| Villarreal | To evaluate the impact of a service development involving a partnership between EMS crew and GPs on reducing conveyance rates to the ED. | QUAN—one group post-test only design. | ND | Pmedics | n=1903 | 63.1% of study population aged ≥61 years. | No | **** | No control group, no data on outcome. |
| Williams | To determine whether unnecessary transport can be avoided. | QUAN—Prospective cohort study. | ND | Pmedics | n=840 | 85.5 (8.3) years. | Yes | **** | ‘Time-sensitive’ outcome measures seem to be somewhat random chosen. |
ALS, advanced life support; BLS, basic life support; ED, emergency department; EmCP, emergency medical care practitioner; EMS, emergency medical service; EMT 2, emergency medical technician (supervised patient assessment); EMT 3, emergency medical technician (unsupervised patient assessment); GP, general practitioner; MMAT, mixed-methods appraisal tool; NA, not applicable; ND, not described; NHS, National Health Service; Pmedics, paramedics; PTL, paramedic team leader; QUAL, qualitative research; QUAN, quantitative research; RN, registered nurse.
Figure 1Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram of the selection process. EMS, emergency medical service.
Data extraction table
| References | Cumulative score* | ||||
| Factors influencing the decision for conveyance | Impact and interplay of the factors | Subjective/objective outcome | |||
| Government | |||||
| Type of organisation, public or private. | Private EMS services are more likely to convey a patient to the hospital than public EMS services (likelihood of conveyance by private EMS service is 4.5 times greater than with a public service). |
| A1 | ||
| Society | |||||
| Presence or absence of alternative care destinations (for low-acuity diagnoses). | Compared with the preintervention group: Smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group received care in the ED (p=0.001). Greater proportions of patients in the intervention group received clinic care (p=0.001) or home care (p=0.043). No safe environment for recovery or absence of investigation and treatment options, if required. Lack of access to alternative service and community resources. Limited awareness of alternative care options by EMS staff. | 5 out of 81 patients were initially referred to an alternative care destination before proceeding on to the ED. No medical morbidity resulted from this delay. |
| A4 | |
|
Conveyance decisions after a primary care or psychosocial response are complex and time-consuming, making conveyance more likely. |
| ||||
| Shift of emergency call profile (from primarily emergency care decisions to primary care and psychosocial care). |
| A1 | |||
| Profession |
| ||||
| Being held liable. | Potentially increases conveyance rate due to: Fear of EMS providers of being held responsible and liable for a patient’s welfare. Anxiety associated with decisions and potential repercussions when deciding not to convey—conveyance to the ED was considered the ‘default safety net’. |
| A6 | ||
| EMS organisational structure |
| ||||
| Lack of perceived organisational support/coverage. |
Less perceived support leads to low-risk decisions, that is, conveyance to the ED. Lack of confidence in organisational support after an incident. |
| A4 | ||
| Operational demands. |
Pressure experienced by EMS staff to minimise on-scene time and to reduce conveyance rates (counter-productive performance indicators). Non-conveyance decisions: often more complex and time consuming (increased on-scene time). Hospital delays impact heavily on EMS staff decision-making. Non-conveyance rates go up in situations of extensive hospital delays. |
| A5 | ||
| Equipment. |
No access to, or defective, essential equipment leading to conveyance. |
| A1 | ||
| Workload |
| ||||
| Influence of service structure. |
Operational circumstances such as a difficult shift, a busy shift or being at the end of a shift leading to the easiest option, that is, conveyance. |
| A2 | ||
| Availability of appropriate resources/persons |
| ||||
| Availability of clear directives or protocols. |
Field-based decision-making without clear directives in end-of-life care is considered problematic and drives up conveyance rates. Introduction of T&R protocols did not change the proportion of patients left at the scene (intervention group 93/251 vs control group 195/537, (p=0.9)). |
| A3 | ||
|
Patient satisfaction scores were significantly higher after introducing T&R guidelines: right amount of advice (p=0.04); reassured by the advice (p=0.02); clarity when asking for more help (p=0.03). Patients’ satisfaction with EMS crew increased (p=0.02). Median job cycle time was 8 min longer for non-conveyed patients (p<0.0001). 3/93 patients in the intervention group and 3/195 patients in the control group were left at home but should have been taken to the ED. |
| ||||
|
EMS staff reported increased confidence, job satisfaction and consistency in their assessment and decision-making after the introduction of protocols. |
| ||||
| Provision of objective feedback information. |
Changes in the practice of paramedics when provided with objective outcome data. Paramedics became self-motivated to improve care. |
No significant difference before and after the intervention in relation to patients who sought medical help and required admission within 24 hours of EMS contact and patient refusals. Patient satisfaction increased after the intervention to 100% (p=0.03). |
| B3 | |
|
Lack of feedback on referral outcome was experienced as frustrating. |
| ||||
|
Limited access to feedback on referral decisions was barrier to individual and organisational learning and improvement. |
| ||||
| Personal and role-related factors |
| ||||
| Knowing the profession | Educational background, competencies and skills. |
Paramedics on their own provided significantly more aid and less frequently conveyed than nurses in a similar position (p=0.000). |
| B5 | |
|
Particular ECPs use a hypothetico-deductive approach to decision-making compared with the pattern-based decision-making approach. ECPs were more likely to treat patients at the scene than paramedics (p=0.007). The training, competence and confidence of the ECPs seemed to improve their decision-making process, with a significant impact on resources (ambulance use, ED presentations). ECPs were more likely to consider the latest evidence in determining their practice. | None of the ECPs’ or paramedics’ patients who were treated at the scene were subsequently conveyed within 24 hours (one repeat call to an ECP-treated patient who had fallen for a second time). |
| |||
|
Lack of training, development and skill use inhibits the competence and confidence of paramedics in dealing with specific, and especially low acuity, decision-making in cases of non-conveyance. |
| ||||
| Role perception. |
Individual paramedic perception of what the role of a paramedic is determines the nature the decision-making process. Paramedics see themselves as highly trained to manage patients with life-threatening conditions and do not see ‘low-acuity’ work as their job. |
| A1 | ||
| Personal and role-related factors |
| ||||
| Knowing the self | Experience and confidence. |
Prior experience or working experience affects conveyance-related decisions. |
| A9 | |
|
EMS staff must have a high level of confidence and/or experience in dealing with do-not-resuscitate and medical orders for life-sustaining treatment situations. |
| ||||
| Gender of EMS staff. |
Male/male teams were 4.75 times more likely to generate an RMA than teams with at least one female (OR 4.75, 95% CI 1.63 to 13.96, p<0.0046). |
| A1 | ||
| Health status of EMS staff. |
EMS staff’s physical condition affects their decision-making ability. Physical problems may negatively affect EMS staff’s concentration, resulting in inadequate conveyance decisions. |
| A1 | ||
| Personal and role-related factors |
| ||||
| Knowing the case | Adequate knowledge-related to pathophysiology. |
Presence of a serious disease, obvious acute signs and symptoms, and perceived unpredictability of the disease result in transportation to the ED. |
| A3 | |
| Knowing the person/patient | Educational status of patient (or family). |
Communicating and interacting with patient and family members with higher or lower educational status can affect the conveyance decision both positively and negatively. |
| A1 | |
| Mental capacity of the patient. |
Policy and protocols dictate ED conveyance in cases were EMS staff finds the patients incapable of making their own decisions (eg, drinking alcohol). |
| A1 | ||
| Personal and role-related factors |
| ||||
| Knowing the person/patient | Financial status/insurance coverage. |
Those who have better financial status can insist, despite the advice of EMS, on conveyance to ED. Patients in financial problems and no insurance ask to manage their problems at home. |
| B2 | |
|
Financial reasons play a major role in the decision-making in elderly patients after an emergency call. | 70% of elderly patients who refuse transport to the hospital received follow-up care, of whom 32% were admitted to hospital. Average rating of paramedic care was 8.1±1.1. |
| |||
| Special patient groups. | Special patient groups, such as: Patients who hold strategic management or administrative positions. Elderly people who live alone. Students who develop problems at school. Culprits and prisoners. Foreigners. |
| A1 | ||
| Lack of access to background medical information. |
Lack of health information increases likelihood of being conveyed as it is seen as the ‘easy option’. |
| A5 | ||
| PROCESS |
| ||||
| Cues | Intuition/instinct. |
Instinct and intuition, after talking to a patient, were named as factors that influenced the conveyance decision. |
| A2 | |
| Use of decision support tools | Use of a decision tool. |
In cases of initial refusal, conveyance of high-risk patients to the ED increased after using a high-risk criteria checklist by EMS staff (3% vs 10%). Transport of patients without high-risk decreased (18% vs 5%, significant finding). | Patients with high-risk criteria who were transported to the ED were more likely to be admitted to the hospital than patients who did not have high-risk criteria (48% vs 5%, p=0.03). |
| B3 |
|
In cases of falls, patients attended by intervention paramedics using computerised clinical support tool were twice as likely to be referred to a fall service (42/436, 9.6%) compared with (17/343, 5.0%); OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.72). Non-conveyance rate was higher in the intervention group (non-significant). | No difference in outcome between intervention and control groups. |
| |||
|
In cases of falls, patients attended by intervention paramedics using a clinical decision flow chart were more likely to be referred to falls services. | There was little difference in the rate of occurrence of serious adverse events between groups. There was no difference in overall healthcare costs at 1 or 6 months. Intervention patients reported higher satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of care. |
| |||
| PROCESS |
| ||||
| Input of significant others | Consulting (EMS) physician. |
In cases of refusal, phone contact with physician improved transportation to the ED of high-risk patients without increasing the on-scene time (from 3% to 35%, significant finding). Transport of patients without high risk decreased (18% vs 0%, significant finding). Similar research showed that online contact with physician increased conveyance to the ED (32.1% vs 8.3%, p<0.001). | Patients with high- risk criteria who were transported to the ED were more likely to be admitted to the hospital than patients who did not meet high-risk criteria (48% vs 5%, p=0.03). |
| A9 |
|
49% of the patients who refused conveyance to the hospital stated that speaking to a physician would influence their decision in favour of transport to the hospital. |
| ||||
|
Difficulty in making contact with (out of hours) GP was a variable that leads to conveyance to the ED. |
| ||||
|
Consulting a novice emergency physician usually leads to the patient being conveyed, while experienced physicians provided constructive advice. |
| ||||
|
Consulting an EMS physician, after EMS assessment combined with a triage tool, leads to 56% absolute decrease in conveyance to the ED (74% control vs 18% intervention, p<0.001). |
| ||||
|
Early dialogue between ambulance nurse and a GP, in patients with non-urgent medical conditions, influences the conveyance decision in favour of non-conveyance. GP had access to the medical history of the patient. | Number of non-conveyance was higher in the intervention group (73.9% vs 36.5%, p<0.001). Mean time to return to service was significantly lower in the intervention group (86.88 vs 94.12 min, p=0.004). |
| |||
|
Elderly are less likely to be conveyed to the ED after EMS assessment combined with a triage tool and GP consultation (telephone advice or face-to-face assessment by GP). | A time-sensitive condition occurred in 2% of the non-conveyed patients after a ground level fall, despite the protocol used (Williams, 2018). |
| |||
| PROCESS |
| ||||
| Consulting colleagues or other services. |
Paramedics had positive experiences and relationships with out-of-hours and other services such as falls teams, thereby preventing conveyance to the ED. |
| A1 | ||
| Unfamiliarity with enhanced skills and responsibilities by other healthcare professionals. |
Healthcare professionals were unaware of the paramedic’s skills and responsibilities making communication and community-based referrals difficult. |
| A1 | ||
| Framing crews expectations by dispatcher. |
Information by dispatcher had the potential to inform and frame crew expectations, but this information was often limited and potentially misleading. |
| A2 | ||
| Views of the patient. |
EMS staff felt that epilepsy patients understood their condition well and were competent to make an appropriate decision once recovered. In cases of end-of-life responses, EMS staff preferred to meet the wishes of the patient if they were capable of deciding. |
| A2 | ||
| Evaluation | No factors found. | ||||
| PROCESS |
| ||||
| Judgement | Considering contextual factors. |
In cases where the family were intensely reactive, conveyance was the easiest and safest choice. Bystander expectations leading to conveyance. |
| A5 | |
|
Differences in practice among paramedics in end-of-life emergency responses leading to conveyance of the patient against their perceived best interest. |
| ||||
|
High response times combined with unfavourable emotional atmosphere in patients and family leading to transport to alleviate the situation. |
| ||||
| Presence or absence of carers. |
Presence of adequate care or carers influenced the decision whether to convey or not. |
| A2 | ||
|
If the patient had social support and access to a district nurse or GP then crews were more prepared not to take the patient to the hospital. |
|
*Cumulative score=(average of MMAT score of related articles and categorised in A (≥3 asterisks), B (<3 to ≥2 asterisks), C (<2 asterisks) COMBINED with total number of related articles).
ALS, Advanced life support; BLS, Basic life support; CCP, critical care paramedic; ECP, Emergency Care Practitioner; ED, emergency department; EmCA, Emergency care assistants; EmCP, Emergency care practitioner; EMT 2, emergency medical technician (supervised patient assessment); EMT 3, emergency medical technician (unsupervised patient assessment); EMT-P: Emergency Medical Technician Paramedic; EMT-D: Emergency Medical Technician Defibrillation-capable; EMT, emergency medical technician; EMT-B, Emergency Medical Technician Basic; GP, general practitioner; ICP, Intensive Care Paramedic; Mdn, median; MM, Mixed method research; MMAT, mixed-methods appraisal tool; NA, not applicable; ND, not described; Pmedics, paramedics; PS, paramedic specialist; PTL, paramedic team leader; QP, Qualified Paramedics; QUAL; Qualitative research; QUAN, Quantitative research; RN, registered nurse; T&R, treat and refer; UP, unregistered practitioner.
Figure 2A priori theoretical framework of the decision-making process on conveyance by emergency medical service staff (based on Gillespie and Peterson, Steiner and Hackman).44 46 47
Figure 3Conceptual framework of factors affecting the decision of ambulance service personnel regarding conveying adult patients to an emergency department. ED, emergency department; ECP, emergency care practitioner; EMS, emergency medical service; GP, general practitioner; MMAT, mixed-methods appraisal tool; Pmedic, paramedic.