Cargando…

Examining consensus for a standardised patient assessment in community paramedicine home visits: a RAND/UCLA-modified Delphi Study

OBJECTIVE: Community paramedicine programme are often designed to address repeated and non-urgent use of paramedic services by providing patients with alternatives to the traditional ‘treat and transport’ ambulance model of care. We sought to investigate the level of consensus that could be found by...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leyenaar, Matthew S, Strum, Ryan P, Batt, Alan M, Sinha, Samir, Nolan, Michael, Agarwal, Gina, Tavares, Walter, Costa, Andrew P
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6797257/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31594901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031956
_version_ 1783459781443321856
author Leyenaar, Matthew S
Strum, Ryan P
Batt, Alan M
Sinha, Samir
Nolan, Michael
Agarwal, Gina
Tavares, Walter
Costa, Andrew P
author_facet Leyenaar, Matthew S
Strum, Ryan P
Batt, Alan M
Sinha, Samir
Nolan, Michael
Agarwal, Gina
Tavares, Walter
Costa, Andrew P
author_sort Leyenaar, Matthew S
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Community paramedicine programme are often designed to address repeated and non-urgent use of paramedic services by providing patients with alternatives to the traditional ‘treat and transport’ ambulance model of care. We sought to investigate the level of consensus that could be found by a panel of experts regarding appropriate health, social and environmental domains that should be assessed in community paramedicine home visit programme. DESIGN: We applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method in a modified Delphi method to investigate the level of consensus on assessment domains for use in community paramedicine home visit programme. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We included a multi-national panel of 17 experts on community paramedicine and in-home assessment from multiple settings (paramedicine, primary care, mental health, home and community care, geriatric care). MEASURES: A list of potential assessment categories was established after a targeted literature review and confirmed by panel members. Over multiple rounds, panel members scored the appropriateness of 48 assessment domains on a Likert scale from 0 (not appropriate) to 5 (very appropriate). Scores were then reviewed at an in-person meeting and a finalised list of assessment domains was generated. RESULTS: After the preliminary round of scoring, all 48 assessment domains had scores that demonstrated consensus. Nine assessment domains (18.8%) demonstrated a wider range of rated appropriateness. No domains were found to be not appropriate. Achieving consensus about the appropriateness of assessment domains on the first round of scoring negated the need for subsequent rounds of scoring. The in-person meeting resulted in re-grouping assessment domains and adding an additional domain about urinary continence. CONCLUSION: An international panel of experts with knowledge about in-home assessment by community paramedics demonstrated a high level of agreement on appropriate patient assessment domains for community paramedicine home visit programme. Community paramedicine home visit programme are likely to have similar patient populations. A standardised assessment instrument may be viable in multiple settings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6797257
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67972572019-10-31 Examining consensus for a standardised patient assessment in community paramedicine home visits: a RAND/UCLA-modified Delphi Study Leyenaar, Matthew S Strum, Ryan P Batt, Alan M Sinha, Samir Nolan, Michael Agarwal, Gina Tavares, Walter Costa, Andrew P BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice OBJECTIVE: Community paramedicine programme are often designed to address repeated and non-urgent use of paramedic services by providing patients with alternatives to the traditional ‘treat and transport’ ambulance model of care. We sought to investigate the level of consensus that could be found by a panel of experts regarding appropriate health, social and environmental domains that should be assessed in community paramedicine home visit programme. DESIGN: We applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method in a modified Delphi method to investigate the level of consensus on assessment domains for use in community paramedicine home visit programme. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We included a multi-national panel of 17 experts on community paramedicine and in-home assessment from multiple settings (paramedicine, primary care, mental health, home and community care, geriatric care). MEASURES: A list of potential assessment categories was established after a targeted literature review and confirmed by panel members. Over multiple rounds, panel members scored the appropriateness of 48 assessment domains on a Likert scale from 0 (not appropriate) to 5 (very appropriate). Scores were then reviewed at an in-person meeting and a finalised list of assessment domains was generated. RESULTS: After the preliminary round of scoring, all 48 assessment domains had scores that demonstrated consensus. Nine assessment domains (18.8%) demonstrated a wider range of rated appropriateness. No domains were found to be not appropriate. Achieving consensus about the appropriateness of assessment domains on the first round of scoring negated the need for subsequent rounds of scoring. The in-person meeting resulted in re-grouping assessment domains and adding an additional domain about urinary continence. CONCLUSION: An international panel of experts with knowledge about in-home assessment by community paramedics demonstrated a high level of agreement on appropriate patient assessment domains for community paramedicine home visit programme. Community paramedicine home visit programme are likely to have similar patient populations. A standardised assessment instrument may be viable in multiple settings. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-10-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6797257/ /pubmed/31594901 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031956 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Evidence Based Practice
Leyenaar, Matthew S
Strum, Ryan P
Batt, Alan M
Sinha, Samir
Nolan, Michael
Agarwal, Gina
Tavares, Walter
Costa, Andrew P
Examining consensus for a standardised patient assessment in community paramedicine home visits: a RAND/UCLA-modified Delphi Study
title Examining consensus for a standardised patient assessment in community paramedicine home visits: a RAND/UCLA-modified Delphi Study
title_full Examining consensus for a standardised patient assessment in community paramedicine home visits: a RAND/UCLA-modified Delphi Study
title_fullStr Examining consensus for a standardised patient assessment in community paramedicine home visits: a RAND/UCLA-modified Delphi Study
title_full_unstemmed Examining consensus for a standardised patient assessment in community paramedicine home visits: a RAND/UCLA-modified Delphi Study
title_short Examining consensus for a standardised patient assessment in community paramedicine home visits: a RAND/UCLA-modified Delphi Study
title_sort examining consensus for a standardised patient assessment in community paramedicine home visits: a rand/ucla-modified delphi study
topic Evidence Based Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6797257/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31594901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031956
work_keys_str_mv AT leyenaarmatthews examiningconsensusforastandardisedpatientassessmentincommunityparamedicinehomevisitsaranduclamodifieddelphistudy
AT strumryanp examiningconsensusforastandardisedpatientassessmentincommunityparamedicinehomevisitsaranduclamodifieddelphistudy
AT battalanm examiningconsensusforastandardisedpatientassessmentincommunityparamedicinehomevisitsaranduclamodifieddelphistudy
AT sinhasamir examiningconsensusforastandardisedpatientassessmentincommunityparamedicinehomevisitsaranduclamodifieddelphistudy
AT nolanmichael examiningconsensusforastandardisedpatientassessmentincommunityparamedicinehomevisitsaranduclamodifieddelphistudy
AT agarwalgina examiningconsensusforastandardisedpatientassessmentincommunityparamedicinehomevisitsaranduclamodifieddelphistudy
AT tavareswalter examiningconsensusforastandardisedpatientassessmentincommunityparamedicinehomevisitsaranduclamodifieddelphistudy
AT costaandrewp examiningconsensusforastandardisedpatientassessmentincommunityparamedicinehomevisitsaranduclamodifieddelphistudy