INTRODUCTION: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are designed to respond to and manage patients experiencing life-threatening emergencies; however, not all emergency calls are necessarily emergent and of high acuity. Emergency responses to low-acuity patients affect not only EMS, but other areas of the health care system. However, definitions of low-acuity calls are vague and subjective; therefore, it was necessary to provide a clear description of the low-acuity patient in EMS. AIM: The goal of this study was to develop descriptors for "low-acuity EMS patients" through expert consensus within the EMS environment. METHODS: A Modified Delphi survey was used to develop call-out categories and descriptors of low acuity through expert opinion of practitioners within EMS. Purposive, snowball sampling was used to recruit 60 participants, of which 29 completed all three rounds. An online survey tool was used and offered both binary and free-text options to participants. Consensus of 75% was accepted on the binary options while free text offered further proposals for consideration during the survey. RESULTS: On completion of round two, consensus was obtained on 45% (70/155) of the descriptors, and a further 30% (46/155) consensus was obtained in round three. Experts felt that respiratory distress, unconsciousness, chest pain, and severe hemorrhage cannot be considered low acuity. For other emergency response categories, specific descriptors were offered to denote a case as low acuity. CONCLUSION: Descriptors of low acuity in EMS are provided in both medical and trauma cases. These descriptors may not only assist in the reduction of unnecessary response and transport of patients, but also assist in identifying the most appropriate response of EMS resources to call-outs. Further development and validation are required of these descriptors in order to improve accuracy and effectiveness within the EMS dispatch environment.
INTRODUCTION: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are designed to respond to and manage patients experiencing life-threatening emergencies; however, not all emergency calls are necessarily emergent and of high acuity. Emergency responses to low-acuity patients affect not only EMS, but other areas of the health care system. However, definitions of low-acuity calls are vague and subjective; therefore, it was necessary to provide a clear description of the low-acuity patient in EMS. AIM: The goal of this study was to develop descriptors for "low-acuity EMS patients" through expert consensus within the EMS environment. METHODS: A Modified Delphi survey was used to develop call-out categories and descriptors of low acuity through expert opinion of practitioners within EMS. Purposive, snowball sampling was used to recruit 60 participants, of which 29 completed all three rounds. An online survey tool was used and offered both binary and free-text options to participants. Consensus of 75% was accepted on the binary options while free text offered further proposals for consideration during the survey. RESULTS: On completion of round two, consensus was obtained on 45% (70/155) of the descriptors, and a further 30% (46/155) consensus was obtained in round three. Experts felt that respiratory distress, unconsciousness, chest pain, and severe hemorrhage cannot be considered low acuity. For other emergency response categories, specific descriptors were offered to denote a case as low acuity. CONCLUSION: Descriptors of low acuity in EMS are provided in both medical and trauma cases. These descriptors may not only assist in the reduction of unnecessary response and transport of patients, but also assist in identifying the most appropriate response of EMS resources to call-outs. Further development and validation are required of these descriptors in order to improve accuracy and effectiveness within the EMS dispatch environment.
Entities:
Keywords:
Emergency Medical Service; emergency dispatch; low acuity; prehospital; triage
Authors: Andrea Conti; Daniela Sacchetto; Giovanni Putoto; Marcello Mazzotta; Giovanna De Meneghi; Emanuela De Vivo; Lorenzo Lora Ronco; Ives Hubloue; Francesco Della Corte; Francesco Barone-Adesi; Luca Ragazzoni; Marta Caviglia Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 4.614