Literature DB >> 3494411

Inappropriate use and unmet need in paramedic and nonparamedic ambulance systems.

A W Rademaker, D G Powell, J H Read.   

Abstract

A survey of emergency department visits was conducted over a 56-week period between November 1980 and November 1981. Inappropriate ambulance use and unmet ambulance need were compared between two cities (one large and one small) with paramedic ambulance services and two cities (one large and one small) with nonparamedic ambulance services. A total of 6,405 visits was evaluated, resulting in overall rates of inappropriate use and unmet need of 42% and 58%, respectively. When paramedic ambulance services were compared to nonparamedic services, the results indicated less inappropriate use in cities with paramedic services (34% vs 49%, P less than .001) as well as less unmet need in cities with paramedic services (48% vs 67%, P less than .001). These results remain consistent within most sample subgroups based on age, sex, time of arrival at ED, and disposition, except that no differences were found for small cities or for patients 50 years and older. The results indicate that paramedic ambulance systems are beneficial to the general population of emergency department users.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3494411     DOI: 10.1016/s0196-0644(87)80684-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Emerg Med        ISSN: 0196-0644            Impact factor:   5.721


  10 in total

1.  Towards primary care for non-serious 999 callers: results of a controlled study of "Treat and Refer" protocols for ambulance crews.

Authors:  H Snooks; N Kearsley; J Dale; M Halter; J Redhead; W Y Cheung
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2004-12

Review 2.  Appropriateness of use of emergency ambulances.

Authors:  H Snooks; H Wrigley; S George; E Thomas; H Smith; A Glasper
Journal:  J Accid Emerg Med       Date:  1998-07

3.  Variations in ambulance use in the United States: the role of health insurance.

Authors:  Zachary F Meisel; Jesse M Pines; Daniel Polsky; Joshua P Metlay; Mark D Neuman; Charles C Branas
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.451

4.  Computer assisted assessment and advice for "non-serious" 999 ambulance service callers: the potential impact on ambulance despatch.

Authors:  J Dale; J Higgins; S Williams; T Foster; H Snooks; R Crouch; C Hartley-Sharpe; E Glucksman; R Hooper; S George
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.740

5.  Safety of telephone consultation for "non-serious" emergency ambulance service patients.

Authors:  J Dale; S Williams; T Foster; J Higgins; H Snooks; R Crouch; C Hartley-Sharpe; E Glucksman; S George
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2004-10

6.  Emergency ambulance dispatch: is there a case for triage?

Authors:  S Thakore; E A McGugan; W Morrison
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 18.000

Review 7.  Why do patients with 'primary care sensitive' problems access ambulance services? A systematic mapping review of the literature.

Authors:  Matthew J Booker; Ali R G Shaw; Sarah Purdy
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Unnecessary emergency medical services transport associated with alcohol intoxication.

Authors:  Christine Van Dillen; Sun Hyu Kim
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 1.671

9.  Analysis of the Adequacy of Prehospital Emergency Medical Services Use of Patients Who Visited Emergency Departments in Korea from 2016 to 2018: Data from the National Emergency Department Information System.

Authors:  Sung Joon Park; Jung-Youn Kim; Young-Hoon Yoon; Eu Sun Lee; Hyun-Jin Kim; Seoung Bum Kim; Hyun Gu Kahng
Journal:  Emerg Med Int       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 1.112

10.  Identifying Frequent Users of an Urban Emergency Medical Service Using Descriptive Statistics and Regression Analyses.

Authors:  Chenelle Norman; Michael Mello; Bryan Choi
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2016-01-12
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.