| Literature DB >> 34332640 |
Jennifer Gerwing1, Jon Erik Steen-Hansen2, Trond Mjaaland3, Bård Fossli Jensen3, Olav Eielsen4, Owen Matthew Truscott Thomas5, Pål Gulbrandsen5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Calls to emergency medical lines are an essential component in the chain of survival. Operators make critical decisions based on information they elicit from callers. Although smooth cooperation is necessary, the field lacks evidence-based guidelines for how to achieve it while adhering to strict parameters of index-driven questioning. We aimed to evaluate the effect of a training intervention for emergency medical operators at a call centre in Tønsberg, Norway. The course was designed to enhance operators' communication skills for smoothing cooperation with callers.Entities:
Keywords: Communication; Communication training; Emergency calls; Emergency medical communication Centre; Emergency medical services dispatch; Empathy; Norway
Year: 2021 PMID: 34332640 PMCID: PMC8325801 DOI: 10.1186/s13049-021-00917-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ISSN: 1757-7241 Impact factor: 2.953
Areas of common ground lacking between citizen callers and EMCC operators
| Lay person caller | EMCC Operator | |
|---|---|---|
| Someone who needs help | A health care professional who provides help | |
| Immediate access to self (or other person), unfolding situation, history | Medical, triage routine, health care system, potential patient records | |
| Moral (whether calling for self or other) | Professional | |
| Potentially distressing, frightening | Distant, professional | |
| Likely low, extraordinary situation | High, everyday, routine work |
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for selection of calls
| Variable | Included | Excluded |
|---|---|---|
| Enquiry | Calls to 113 | “Calls” from other lines as Ambulance booking, Web booking, Emergency room, lines from Fire, Police, Radio and administrative telephone lines. |
| Caller | The general public (Patient, Relatives, Children under the age of 16, Neighbor, Bystander) | Doctor, Health Professionals, Emergency primary health care central, Other EMCC Central, Fire Department, Police, Airline, Paramedics. |
| Event | Somatic disease, Obstetrics/ Maternity Care, Psychiatry / psychosocial, Overdose addict, Intoxication Traffic accident, Fire, Other type of accident, Violence - exposed to Violence - self-inflicted, Medical emergency – other, Obvious signs of death, Search and rescue Preparedness v/dangerous situation Harassment, Emergency telephone for the Police, Emergency telephone for the fire brigade | Transfer, Homerun, To doctor/outpatient clinic, Other booking Other inquiry –no need, Hospital internal emergency, Other internal incident, Emergency response moved (tactical displacement of empty ambulance to maintain dispersed emergency response), False message, error ring, Technical error ring Shredded. |
Fig. 1All emergency calls and other inquiries (all call-takers) to the EMCC during the study periods
Communication behaviours analyzed, rationale, and definition
| Derived from course description | Product of analysis of calls | |
|---|---|---|
| Behavior | Rationale | Brief definition for positive evaluation |
| decreases uncertainty at the outset of the call and defines the operator’s role | the number of the centre (113), the operator’s name, and (if applicable) that they are a nurse | |
| gives callers maximum autonomy, accountability, and opportunity to describe what is within their epistemic domain (i.e., their situation) | request for information that requires a substantive answer from the caller (i.e., more than yes, no, or choice from a closed list of options) | |
| signals that the caller’s actions reflect fulfilled moral or ethical responsibility | statements that thank or compliment the caller’s contributions and actions | |
| bridges emotional distance, allowing the caller to feel the operator’s compassion | expressions or utterances that | |
| offers callers the sense that the operator has confidence in their ability to observe and evaluate the situation | the lack of a negative response to caller’s opinions/evaluations that would normally be within the operator’s epistemic domain | |
Scoring and descriptive statistics for analysis of communication behaviours
| Behavior | Scoring for each call | M (SD) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-training | Post-training | ||
| Dichotomous: 1 = greeting fulfils criteria; 0 = greeting does not fulfill criteria | 0.00 (0.00) 0.00-0.00 | 1.00 (0.00) 1.00-1.00 | |
| Proportion: The number of open-ended questions over all questions | 0.42 (0.21) 0.07-1.00 | 0.46 (0.23) 0.12-1.00 | |
| Frequency: The number of utterances during which the operator acknowledges the caller | 0.10 (0.30) 0.00-1.00 | 1.60 (2.00) 0.00-6.00 | |
| Frequency: The number of utterances during which the operator expresses empathy to the caller | 1.50 (2.06) 0.00-6.00 | 2.80 (3.33) 0.00-9.00 | |
| Proportion: The number of not-negative responses over opportunities | 0.97 0.80-1.00 | 1.00 1.00-1.00 | |
*p = 0.015; ** p < .001