Collecting core data in physician-staffed pre-hospital helicopter emergency medical services using a consensus-based template: international multicentre feasibility study in Finland and Norway.
Critical care
Data collection
Documentation
Emergency medical services
Feasibility studies
Pre-hospital emergency care
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Mar 2019
08 Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
13
09
2018
accepted:
26
02
2019
entrez:
10
3
2019
pubmed:
10
3
2019
medline:
18
5
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Comparison of services and identification of factors important for favourable patient outcomes in emergency medical services (EMS) is challenging due to different organization and quality of data. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility of physician-staffed EMS (p-EMS) to collect patient and system level data by using a consensus-based template. The study was an international multicentre observational study. Data were collected according to a template for uniform reporting of data from p-EMS using two different data collection methods; a standard and a focused data collection method. For the standard data collection, data were extracted retrospectively for one year from all FinnHEMS bases and for the focused data collection, data were collected prospectively for six weeks from four selected Norwegian p-EMS bases. Completeness rates for the two data collection methods were then compared and factors affecting completeness rates and template feasibility were evaluated. Standard Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact Test and Mann-Whitney U Test were used for group comparison of categorical and continuous data, respectively, and Kolomogorov-Smirnov test for comparison of distributional properties. All missions with patient encounters were included, leaving 4437 Finnish and 128 Norwegian missions eligible for analysis. Variable completeness rates indicated that physiological variables were least documented. Information on pain and respiratory rate were the most frequently missing variables with a standard data collection method and systolic blood pressure was the most missing variable with a focused data collection method. Completeness rates were similar or higher when patients were considered severely ill or injured but were lower for missions with short patient encounter. When a focused data collection method was used, completeness rates were higher compared to a standard data collection method. We found that a focused data collection method increased data capture compared to a standard data collection method. The concept of using a template for documentation of p-EMS data is feasible in physician-staffed services in Finland and Norway. The greatest deficiencies in completeness rates were evident for physiological parameters. Short missions were associated with lower completeness rates whereas severe illness or injury did not result in reduced data capture.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Comparison of services and identification of factors important for favourable patient outcomes in emergency medical services (EMS) is challenging due to different organization and quality of data. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility of physician-staffed EMS (p-EMS) to collect patient and system level data by using a consensus-based template.
METHODS
METHODS
The study was an international multicentre observational study. Data were collected according to a template for uniform reporting of data from p-EMS using two different data collection methods; a standard and a focused data collection method. For the standard data collection, data were extracted retrospectively for one year from all FinnHEMS bases and for the focused data collection, data were collected prospectively for six weeks from four selected Norwegian p-EMS bases. Completeness rates for the two data collection methods were then compared and factors affecting completeness rates and template feasibility were evaluated. Standard Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact Test and Mann-Whitney U Test were used for group comparison of categorical and continuous data, respectively, and Kolomogorov-Smirnov test for comparison of distributional properties.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All missions with patient encounters were included, leaving 4437 Finnish and 128 Norwegian missions eligible for analysis. Variable completeness rates indicated that physiological variables were least documented. Information on pain and respiratory rate were the most frequently missing variables with a standard data collection method and systolic blood pressure was the most missing variable with a focused data collection method. Completeness rates were similar or higher when patients were considered severely ill or injured but were lower for missions with short patient encounter. When a focused data collection method was used, completeness rates were higher compared to a standard data collection method.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We found that a focused data collection method increased data capture compared to a standard data collection method. The concept of using a template for documentation of p-EMS data is feasible in physician-staffed services in Finland and Norway. The greatest deficiencies in completeness rates were evident for physiological parameters. Short missions were associated with lower completeness rates whereas severe illness or injury did not result in reduced data capture.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30849977
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-3976-6
pii: 10.1186/s12913-019-3976-6
pmc: PMC6408770
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
151Références
Prehosp Disaster Med. 1995 Jan-Mar;10(1):24-9
pubmed: 10155402
Resuscitation. 1999 Oct;42(2):81-100
pubmed: 10617327
J Trauma. 2000 Apr;48(4):643-8
pubmed: 10780596
Int J Med Inform. 2001 May;61(2-3):147-61
pubmed: 11311669
Acad Emerg Med. 2001 Jul;8(7):758-60
pubmed: 11435197
J Trauma. 2004 May;56(5):1029-32
pubmed: 15179242
Acad Emerg Med. 2004 Nov;11(11):1127-34
pubmed: 15528575
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2006 Jun 20;6:26
pubmed: 16787539
Scand J Surg. 2007;96(4):325-31
pubmed: 18265862
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2008 Apr;21(2):222-7
pubmed: 18443493
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008 Nov 06;:318-22
pubmed: 18999022
Paediatr Child Health. 2006 Apr;11(4):211-5
pubmed: 19030273
Emerg Med J. 2009 Aug;26(8):552-5
pubmed: 19625547
Emerg Med J. 2009 Oct;26(10):698-700
pubmed: 19773484
Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Mar;55(3):235-246.e4
pubmed: 19783323
Air Med J. 2009 Nov-Dec;28(6):298-302
pubmed: 19896582
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2009 Nov 20;17:58
pubmed: 19925688
J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Feb;210(2):220-7
pubmed: 20113943
Resuscitation. 2010 Apr;81(4):427-33
pubmed: 20122784
Emerg Med J. 2010 May;27(5):350-4
pubmed: 20442162
Emerg Med J. 2011 Apr;28(4):320-4
pubmed: 20713363
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2010 Nov 23;18:62
pubmed: 21092256
Crit Care. 2011;15(1):R26
pubmed: 21244667
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011 Apr-Jun;15(2):149-57
pubmed: 21294627
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011 Mar 31;19:20
pubmed: 21453536
Resuscitation. 2011 Sep;82(9):1130-7
pubmed: 21555177
J Patient Saf. 2011 Mar;7(1):26-9
pubmed: 21921864
Crit Care. 2011;15(5):R237
pubmed: 21992236
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011 Oct 13;19:57
pubmed: 21996444
Resuscitation. 2012 Mar;83(3):333-7
pubmed: 22079948
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011 Nov 23;19:71
pubmed: 22107787
Injury. 2013 Jan;44(1):29-35
pubmed: 22277107
Unfallchirurg. 2013 Apr;116(4):345-50
pubmed: 22418825
Eur J Emerg Med. 2013 Apr;20(2):79-85
pubmed: 22426320
Chest. 2012 Apr;141(4):1082-1089
pubmed: 22474150
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2012 Jul-Sep;16(3):381-9
pubmed: 22490009
Injury. 2013 May;44(5):691-9
pubmed: 22831922
Injury. 2012 Nov;43(11):1917-23
pubmed: 22884761
Mt Sinai J Med. 2012 Nov-Dec;79(6):757-68
pubmed: 23239213
Emerg Med Australas. 2013 Feb;25(1):55-63
pubmed: 23379453
Injury. 2013 May;44(5):634-8
pubmed: 23391450
Ann Surg. 2013 Jul;258(1):178-83
pubmed: 23478519
Crit Care. 2013 Jun 21;17(3):R124
pubmed: 23799905
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013 Oct;57(9):1175-85
pubmed: 24001223
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013 Nov 26;21:80
pubmed: 24279612
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2014 Jan 30;22:5
pubmed: 24517242
Eur J Emerg Med. 2015 Dec;22(6):391-4
pubmed: 24841771
Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1500-24
pubmed: 25046751
Injury. 2015 Apr;46(4):525-7
pubmed: 25262329
Injury. 2014 Oct;45 Suppl 3:S43-52
pubmed: 25284234
ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:201570
pubmed: 25538947
Injury. 2015 Apr;46(4):602-9
pubmed: 25627482
Injury. 2015 Jul;46(7):1281-6
pubmed: 25907401
Injury. 2015 Nov;46(11):2093-102
pubmed: 26264879
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Nov 3;163(9):681-90
pubmed: 26457627
Resuscitation. 2016 Oct;107:135-8
pubmed: 27377669
Intensive Care Med. 2016 Dec;42(12):1922-1934
pubmed: 27647331
Eur J Emerg Med. 2018 Apr;25(2):114-119
pubmed: 27879534
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017 Jun;32(3):273-283
pubmed: 28228178
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017 Feb 28;25(1):21
pubmed: 28245880
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017 Aug;32(4):444-450
pubmed: 28367760
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2017 Aug;30(4):513-517
pubmed: 28509774
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 22;7(10):e016912
pubmed: 29061611
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2018 Sep-Oct;22(5):539-550
pubmed: 29494774
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 26;379(4):315-326
pubmed: 30044935
Am J Emerg Med. 1995 Mar;13(2):133-5
pubmed: 7893293