An Incomplete Medical Record: Transfer of Care From Emergency Medical Services to the Emergency Department.
emergency department
emr
ems
prehospital
transfer of care
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
accepted:
20
02
2022
entrez:
29
3
2022
pubmed:
30
3
2022
medline:
30
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Transition of care from Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to the Emergency Department (ED) represents an intersection at high risk for error. Minimal research has quantitatively examined data transfer at this point. In Pennsylvania, this handoff consists of a transfer-of-care form (TOC) provided by EMS to ED in addition to a verbal report. A prehospital patient care report (PCR) is later filed by EMS up to 72 hours after concluding care. To evaluate the congruence between prehospital records provided at handoff and the final PCR found in the patient's medical record. Our hypothesis was that there would be discrepancies between the TOC and final PCR. A retrospective chart review was conducted comparing the TOC from a single EMS agency to the final PCR found in the electronic medical record. A convenience sample of 200 patients who received advanced life support transport over a one-month period were included. Metrics to assess the discrepancy between the reports included chief complaint, allergies, medications, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), pulse, respiratory rate (RR), Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), and prehospital treatment provided. The level of agreement between the two sources was compared using kappa statistics and concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) with 95% confidence intervals. Of the 200 encounters that met inclusion criteria, 72% had matching chief complaints between the TOC and PCR. Medications matched in 66% and allergies matched in 82%. Up to three BP, pulse, and RR readings were collected; only 30% of the third BP readings were available from the TOC, while 68% were available from the PCR. Comparing the three SBP values on the TOC to respective counterparts on the PCR showed a substantial correlation (all CCC >0.95). Pulse and DBP values had moderate-to-substantial correlation (CCC: 0.93, 0.94, 0.96 and 0.77, 0.92, 0.94 respectively). RR showed inconsistent correlation (CCC: 0.37, 0.84, 0.94). GCS showed a moderate correlation between the two forms (CCC: 0.81). There were significant differences between the information transferred to the ED through the TOC compared to what was recorded in the PCR. Further evaluation of the TOC process is needed to improve accuracy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Transition of care from Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to the Emergency Department (ED) represents an intersection at high risk for error. Minimal research has quantitatively examined data transfer at this point. In Pennsylvania, this handoff consists of a transfer-of-care form (TOC) provided by EMS to ED in addition to a verbal report. A prehospital patient care report (PCR) is later filed by EMS up to 72 hours after concluding care.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the congruence between prehospital records provided at handoff and the final PCR found in the patient's medical record. Our hypothesis was that there would be discrepancies between the TOC and final PCR.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective chart review was conducted comparing the TOC from a single EMS agency to the final PCR found in the electronic medical record. A convenience sample of 200 patients who received advanced life support transport over a one-month period were included. Metrics to assess the discrepancy between the reports included chief complaint, allergies, medications, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), pulse, respiratory rate (RR), Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), and prehospital treatment provided. The level of agreement between the two sources was compared using kappa statistics and concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 200 encounters that met inclusion criteria, 72% had matching chief complaints between the TOC and PCR. Medications matched in 66% and allergies matched in 82%. Up to three BP, pulse, and RR readings were collected; only 30% of the third BP readings were available from the TOC, while 68% were available from the PCR. Comparing the three SBP values on the TOC to respective counterparts on the PCR showed a substantial correlation (all CCC >0.95). Pulse and DBP values had moderate-to-substantial correlation (CCC: 0.93, 0.94, 0.96 and 0.77, 0.92, 0.94 respectively). RR showed inconsistent correlation (CCC: 0.37, 0.84, 0.94). GCS showed a moderate correlation between the two forms (CCC: 0.81).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
There were significant differences between the information transferred to the ED through the TOC compared to what was recorded in the PCR. Further evaluation of the TOC process is needed to improve accuracy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35345754
doi: 10.7759/cureus.22446
pmc: PMC8942169
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e22446Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022, Lubin et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2021 Dec 22;:1-9
pubmed: 34734787
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014 Apr-Jun;18(2):305
pubmed: 24601899
Ann Emerg Med. 2015 Mar;65(3):310-317.e1
pubmed: 25109535
N Engl J Med. 2014 Nov 6;371(19):1803-12
pubmed: 25372088
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2020 May-Jun;24(3):421-433
pubmed: 31210572
Intern Emerg Med. 2014 Aug;9(5):575-82
pubmed: 24429589
Injury. 2010 May;41(5):460-4
pubmed: 19735917
Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Jul;38(7):1494-1503
pubmed: 32321683
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013 Sep;57(8):964-70
pubmed: 23639134
Emerg Med Australas. 2013 Oct;25(5):393-405
pubmed: 24099367
Emerg Med J. 2015 Jul;32(7):577-81
pubmed: 25178977
BMC Emerg Med. 2021 Nov 17;21(1):137
pubmed: 34784901
Nurs Crit Care. 2005 Jul-Aug;10(4):201-9
pubmed: 15997974
Ann Emerg Med. 2015 Aug;66(2):125-30
pubmed: 25805116
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2019 Jan-Feb;23(1):15-21
pubmed: 30118642
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017 Jan-Feb;21(1):14-17
pubmed: 27420753
Am J Emerg Med. 2012 Jan;30(1):51-6
pubmed: 21030181
Emerg Med J. 2007 Aug;24(8):539-42
pubmed: 17652672
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2021 Jan 25;:1-11
pubmed: 33320716
J Med Toxicol. 2018 Dec;14(4):272-277
pubmed: 29968185
Emerg Med J. 2015 Feb;32(2):112-8
pubmed: 24026973
Nurs Clin North Am. 2019 Sep;54(3):313-323
pubmed: 31331619