Joanna M Blodgett1,2,3, Duncan J Robertson4,5, Elspeth Pennington4, David Ratcliffe4,6, Kenneth Rockwood7. 1. MRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing, UCL, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. Joanna.blodgett.16@ucl.ac.uk. 2. North West Ambulance Service, NHS Trust, Bolton, UK. Joanna.blodgett.16@ucl.ac.uk. 3. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. Joanna.blodgett.16@ucl.ac.uk. 4. North West Ambulance Service, NHS Trust, Bolton, UK. 5. Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust, Denbighshire, UK. 6. Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership, Manchester, UK. 7. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of ambulance services is shifting, due in part to more intermediate, non-urgent patients who do not require direct emergency department conveyance, yet who cannot be safely left at home alone. Evidence surrounding the safety, effectiveness and efficiency of alternate care routes is not well known. METHODS: This scoping review sought to identify all studies that examined alternate routes of care for the non-urgent "intermediate" patient, as triaged on scene. Search terms for the sample (ambulances, paramedics, etc.) and intervention (e.g. referrals, alternate care route, non-conveyance) were combined. Articles were systematically searched using four databases and grey literature sources (February 2020). Independent researchers screened title-abstract and full text stages. RESULTS: Of 16,037 records, 41 examined alternate routes of care after triage by the on-scene paramedic. Eighteen articles considered quantitative patient data, 12 studies provided qualitative perspectives while 11 were consensus or opinion-based articles. The benefits of alternative schemes are well-recognised by patients, paramedics and stakeholders and there is supporting evidence for a positive impact on patient-centered care and operational efficiency. Challenges to successful use of schemes included: patient safety resulting from incorrect triage decisions, inadequate training, lack of formal partnerships between ambulance and supporting services, and insufficient evidence to support safe implementation or continued use. Studies often inaccurately defined success using proxies for patient safety (e.g. decision comparisons, rates of secondary contact). Finally, patients expressed willingness for such schemes but their preference must be better understood. CONCLUSIONS: This broad summary offers initial support for alternate routes of care for intermediate, non-urgent patients. Even so, most studies lacked methodologically rigorous evidence and failed to evaluate safe patient outcomes. Some remedies appear to be available such as formal triage pathways, targeted training and organisational support, however there is an urgent need for more research and dissemination in this area.
BACKGROUND: The role of ambulance services is shifting, due in part to more intermediate, non-urgent patients who do not require direct emergency department conveyance, yet who cannot be safely left at home alone. Evidence surrounding the safety, effectiveness and efficiency of alternate care routes is not well known. METHODS: This scoping review sought to identify all studies that examined alternate routes of care for the non-urgent "intermediate" patient, as triaged on scene. Search terms for the sample (ambulances, paramedics, etc.) and intervention (e.g. referrals, alternate care route, non-conveyance) were combined. Articles were systematically searched using four databases and grey literature sources (February 2020). Independent researchers screened title-abstract and full text stages. RESULTS: Of 16,037 records, 41 examined alternate routes of care after triage by the on-scene paramedic. Eighteen articles considered quantitative patient data, 12 studies provided qualitative perspectives while 11 were consensus or opinion-based articles. The benefits of alternative schemes are well-recognised by patients, paramedics and stakeholders and there is supporting evidence for a positive impact on patient-centered care and operational efficiency. Challenges to successful use of schemes included: patient safety resulting from incorrect triage decisions, inadequate training, lack of formal partnerships between ambulance and supporting services, and insufficient evidence to support safe implementation or continued use. Studies often inaccurately defined success using proxies for patient safety (e.g. decision comparisons, rates of secondary contact). Finally, patients expressed willingness for such schemes but their preference must be better understood. CONCLUSIONS: This broad summary offers initial support for alternate routes of care for intermediate, non-urgent patients. Even so, most studies lacked methodologically rigorous evidence and failed to evaluate safe patient outcomes. Some remedies appear to be available such as formal triage pathways, targeted training and organisational support, however there is an urgent need for more research and dissemination in this area.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alternative care routes; Ambulance; Non-emergency medical care; Pre-hospital emergency care; Referrals; Scoping review
Authors: Jan L Jensen; Alix J E Carter; Jennifer Rose; Sarah Visintini; Emmanuelle Bourdon; Ryan Brown; Jennifer McVey; Andrew H Travers Journal: CJEM Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 2.410
Authors: Amol A Verma; John Klich; Adam Thurston; Jordan Scantlebury; Alex Kiss; Gayle Seddon; Samir K Sinha Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Erin Lillie; Wasifa Zarin; Kelly K O'Brien; Heather Colquhoun; Danielle Levac; David Moher; Micah D J Peters; Tanya Horsley; Laura Weeks; Susanne Hempel; Elie A Akl; Christine Chang; Jessie McGowan; Lesley Stewart; Lisa Hartling; Adrian Aldcroft; Michael G Wilson; Chantelle Garritty; Simon Lewin; Christina M Godfrey; Marilyn T Macdonald; Etienne V Langlois; Karla Soares-Weiser; Jo Moriarty; Tammy Clifford; Özge Tunçalp; Sharon E Straus Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jani Paulin; Akseli Reunamo; Jouni Kurola; Hans Moen; Sanna Salanterä; Heikki Riihimäki; Tero Vesanen; Mari Koivisto; Timo Iirola Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 3.298