Literature DB >> 34570670

National Characteristics of Non-Transported Children by Emergency Medical Services in the United States.

Caleb Ward, Anqing Zhang, Kathleen Brown, Joelle Simpson, James Chamberlain.   

Abstract

Study Objective: Most 911 calls result in ambulance transport to an emergency department. In some cases, transport is refused or deemed unnecessary. The frequency of pediatric non-transport is unknown. Our primary objective was to describe the proportion of pediatric EMS activations resulting in non-transport. Our secondary objective was to identify patient, community, and EMS agency factors associated with pediatric non-transport.
Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study using 2019 data from the National EMS Information System registry. We compared non-transport rates for children (<18 y/o), adults (18 - 60 y/o) and elderly (>60 y/o) patients. We then used generalized estimating equations to identify factors associated with pediatric non-transport while accounting for geographical clustering.
Results: There were 21,931,490 EMS activations, including 1,403,454 pediatric 911 responses. 30% of pediatric 911 responses resulted in non-transport. Non-transport was less likely for adults (19%, OR 0.54 [0.54, 0.55]) and elderly patients (13%, OR 0.35 [0.35, 0.36]). The most common pediatric non-transport dispositions were: refused evaluation/care, and treated/released. Non-transport was associated with: pulmonary (aOR 3.84 [3.30, 4.48]) and musculoskeletal chief complaints (aOR 3.75 [3.22, 4.36]). Non-transport was more likely for: rural EMS calls (aOR 1.28 [1.24, 1.32]); calls classified by EMS as Lower Acuity (aOR 7.88 [5.98, 10.38]); and Tribal EMS agencies (aOR 3.49 [3.09, 3.94]).
Conclusion: Almost one-third of pediatric 911 activations result in non-transport. Although very few children have been included in pilots of alternate transport processes to date, non-transport is actually more common in children than adults. More work is needed to understand better the patient safety and economic implications of this practice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Emergency Medical Services (EMS); pediatric transport; triage

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34570670      PMCID: PMC9061893          DOI: 10.1080/10903127.2021.1985666

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care        ISSN: 1090-3127            Impact factor:   2.686


  39 in total

1.  Prehospital evaluation of non-transported pediatric patients by a large emergency medical services system.

Authors:  G R Gerlacher; P E Sirbaugh; C G Macias
Journal:  Pediatr Emerg Care       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 1.454

2.  Deployment of Alternative Response Units in a High-Volume, Urban EMS System.

Authors:  C Crawford Mechem; Crystal A Yates; Maureen S Rush; Arturo Alleyne; H Jay Singleton; Tabitha L Boyle
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 3.077

Review 3.  Right Care, Right Place, Right Time: The CMS Innovation Center Launches the Emergency Triage, Treat, and Transport Model.

Authors:  Sarah Goldman; Geraldine Doetzer; Arpan Parekh; Brendan Carr; Dawn Alley
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2019-10-26       Impact factor: 5.721

4.  Are heroin overdose deaths related to patient release after prehospital treatment with naloxone?

Authors:  G M Vilke; J Buchanan; J V Dunford; T C Chan
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  1999 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 3.077

5.  Effects of Emergency Medical Services Agency Ownership Status on Patient Transport.

Authors:  Jackson Déziel
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 3.077

6.  A high proportion of prehospital emergency patients are not transported by ambulance: a retrospective cohort study in Northern Finland.

Authors:  M Hoikka; T Silfvast; T I Ala-Kokko
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.105

7.  Emergency Medical Services Provider Perspectives on Pediatric Calls: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Jessica N Jeruzal; Lori L Boland; Monica S Frazer; Jonathan W Kamrud; Russell N Myers; Charles J Lick; Andrew C Stevens
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2019-01-11       Impact factor: 3.077

8.  Out-of-hospital treatment of hypoglycemia: refusal of transport and patient outcome.

Authors:  S J Socransky; R G Pirrallo; J M Rubin
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 3.451

9.  Characteristics of the pediatric patients treated by the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network's affiliated EMS agencies.

Authors:  E Brooke Lerner; Peter S Dayan; Kathleen Brown; Susan Fuchs; Julie Leonard; Dominic Borgialli; Lynn Babcock; John D Hoyle; Maria Kwok; Kathleen Lillis; Lise E Nigrovic; Prashant Mahajan; Alexander Rogers; Hamilton Schwartz; Joyce Soprano; Nicholas Tsarouhas; Samuel Turnipseed; Tomohiko Funai; George Foltin
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 3.077

10.  Why do ambulance services have different non-transport rates? A national cross sectional study.

Authors:  Alicia O'Cathain; Richard Jacques; Tony Stone; Janette Turner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

1.  Caregiver Perceptions Regarding Alternative Emergency Medical Services Dispositions for Children: A Cross-Sectional Survey Analysis.

Authors:  Caleb E Ward; Jonathan Gougelet; Ryan Pearman; Gia M Badolato; Joelle N Simpson
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2022-07-02
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.