L H Brown1, J K Collins, J E Gough, N H Benson. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, East Carolina University School of Medicine, Greenville, North Carolina 27858, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which prehospital patient care protocols incorporate the findings of the peer-reviewed scientific EMS literature. METHODS: Using a computerized literature search, articles published from eight institutions known to be active in prehospital care research were identified and obtained from the local health sciences library. Animal or bench research, analysis of administrative practices, evaluation of educational or quality assurance techniques, collective reviews, and air medical articles were excluded. We compared the findings of each article with the guidelines contained in 12 sets of prehospital care protocols, ranking them as: 1) consistent; 2) partially consistent; 3) not discussed; or 4) not consistent. The rankings for the article-protocol comparisons for each EMS system were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Forty-nine papers were compared with 12 sets of protocols, resulting in 588 comparisons. More than half (53.1%, n = 312) of the comparisons were ranked as "consistent." Only 28 (4.8%) of the comparisons were found to be "not consistent." There was no significant difference in the rankings assigned to the comparisons for protocols from each individual system, nor in the rankings for protocols from the EMS system associated with the source of the article, from other systems with academic affiliations, and from systems without academic affiliations. CONCLUSION: Most EMS protocols are consistent with the published peer-reviewed research. There is no difference in the level of consistency when comparing protocols from EMS systems associated with the source of the articles, those associated with other academic institutions, and those without strong academic affiliations.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which prehospital patient care protocols incorporate the findings of the peer-reviewed scientific EMS literature. METHODS: Using a computerized literature search, articles published from eight institutions known to be active in prehospital care research were identified and obtained from the local health sciences library. Animal or bench research, analysis of administrative practices, evaluation of educational or quality assurance techniques, collective reviews, and air medical articles were excluded. We compared the findings of each article with the guidelines contained in 12 sets of prehospital care protocols, ranking them as: 1) consistent; 2) partially consistent; 3) not discussed; or 4) not consistent. The rankings for the article-protocol comparisons for each EMS system were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Forty-nine papers were compared with 12 sets of protocols, resulting in 588 comparisons. More than half (53.1%, n = 312) of the comparisons were ranked as "consistent." Only 28 (4.8%) of the comparisons were found to be "not consistent." There was no significant difference in the rankings assigned to the comparisons for protocols from each individual system, nor in the rankings for protocols from the EMS system associated with the source of the article, from other systems with academic affiliations, and from systems without academic affiliations. CONCLUSION: Most EMS protocols are consistent with the published peer-reviewed research. There is no difference in the level of consistency when comparing protocols from EMS systems associated with the source of the articles, those associated with other academic institutions, and those without strong academic affiliations.