Cargando…

Alternatives to direct emergency department conveyance of ambulance patients: a scoping review of the evidence

BACKGROUND: The role of ambulance services is shifting, due in part to more intermediate, non-urgent patients who do not require direct emergency department conveyance, yet who cannot be safely left at home alone. Evidence surrounding the safety, effectiveness and efficiency of alternate care routes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blodgett, Joanna M., Robertson, Duncan J., Pennington, Elspeth, Ratcliffe, David, Rockwood, Kenneth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7789540/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33407771
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-020-00821-x
_version_ 1783633261801504768
author Blodgett, Joanna M.
Robertson, Duncan J.
Pennington, Elspeth
Ratcliffe, David
Rockwood, Kenneth
author_facet Blodgett, Joanna M.
Robertson, Duncan J.
Pennington, Elspeth
Ratcliffe, David
Rockwood, Kenneth
author_sort Blodgett, Joanna M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The role of ambulance services is shifting, due in part to more intermediate, non-urgent patients who do not require direct emergency department conveyance, yet who cannot be safely left at home alone. Evidence surrounding the safety, effectiveness and efficiency of alternate care routes is not well known. METHODS: This scoping review sought to identify all studies that examined alternate routes of care for the non-urgent “intermediate” patient, as triaged on scene. Search terms for the sample (ambulances, paramedics, etc.) and intervention (e.g. referrals, alternate care route, non-conveyance) were combined. Articles were systematically searched using four databases and grey literature sources (February 2020). Independent researchers screened title-abstract and full text stages. RESULTS: Of 16,037 records, 41 examined alternate routes of care after triage by the on-scene paramedic. Eighteen articles considered quantitative patient data, 12 studies provided qualitative perspectives while 11 were consensus or opinion-based articles. The benefits of alternative schemes are well-recognised by patients, paramedics and stakeholders and there is supporting evidence for a positive impact on patient-centered care and operational efficiency. Challenges to successful use of schemes included: patient safety resulting from incorrect triage decisions, inadequate training, lack of formal partnerships between ambulance and supporting services, and insufficient evidence to support safe implementation or continued use. Studies often inaccurately defined success using proxies for patient safety (e.g. decision comparisons, rates of secondary contact). Finally, patients expressed willingness for such schemes but their preference must be better understood. CONCLUSIONS: This broad summary offers initial support for alternate routes of care for intermediate, non-urgent patients. Even so, most studies lacked methodologically rigorous evidence and failed to evaluate safe patient outcomes. Some remedies appear to be available such as formal triage pathways, targeted training and organisational support, however there is an urgent need for more research and dissemination in this area.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7789540
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77895402021-01-07 Alternatives to direct emergency department conveyance of ambulance patients: a scoping review of the evidence Blodgett, Joanna M. Robertson, Duncan J. Pennington, Elspeth Ratcliffe, David Rockwood, Kenneth Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Review BACKGROUND: The role of ambulance services is shifting, due in part to more intermediate, non-urgent patients who do not require direct emergency department conveyance, yet who cannot be safely left at home alone. Evidence surrounding the safety, effectiveness and efficiency of alternate care routes is not well known. METHODS: This scoping review sought to identify all studies that examined alternate routes of care for the non-urgent “intermediate” patient, as triaged on scene. Search terms for the sample (ambulances, paramedics, etc.) and intervention (e.g. referrals, alternate care route, non-conveyance) were combined. Articles were systematically searched using four databases and grey literature sources (February 2020). Independent researchers screened title-abstract and full text stages. RESULTS: Of 16,037 records, 41 examined alternate routes of care after triage by the on-scene paramedic. Eighteen articles considered quantitative patient data, 12 studies provided qualitative perspectives while 11 were consensus or opinion-based articles. The benefits of alternative schemes are well-recognised by patients, paramedics and stakeholders and there is supporting evidence for a positive impact on patient-centered care and operational efficiency. Challenges to successful use of schemes included: patient safety resulting from incorrect triage decisions, inadequate training, lack of formal partnerships between ambulance and supporting services, and insufficient evidence to support safe implementation or continued use. Studies often inaccurately defined success using proxies for patient safety (e.g. decision comparisons, rates of secondary contact). Finally, patients expressed willingness for such schemes but their preference must be better understood. CONCLUSIONS: This broad summary offers initial support for alternate routes of care for intermediate, non-urgent patients. Even so, most studies lacked methodologically rigorous evidence and failed to evaluate safe patient outcomes. Some remedies appear to be available such as formal triage pathways, targeted training and organisational support, however there is an urgent need for more research and dissemination in this area. BioMed Central 2021-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7789540/ /pubmed/33407771 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-020-00821-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Blodgett, Joanna M.
Robertson, Duncan J.
Pennington, Elspeth
Ratcliffe, David
Rockwood, Kenneth
Alternatives to direct emergency department conveyance of ambulance patients: a scoping review of the evidence
title Alternatives to direct emergency department conveyance of ambulance patients: a scoping review of the evidence
title_full Alternatives to direct emergency department conveyance of ambulance patients: a scoping review of the evidence
title_fullStr Alternatives to direct emergency department conveyance of ambulance patients: a scoping review of the evidence
title_full_unstemmed Alternatives to direct emergency department conveyance of ambulance patients: a scoping review of the evidence
title_short Alternatives to direct emergency department conveyance of ambulance patients: a scoping review of the evidence
title_sort alternatives to direct emergency department conveyance of ambulance patients: a scoping review of the evidence
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7789540/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33407771
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-020-00821-x
work_keys_str_mv AT blodgettjoannam alternativestodirectemergencydepartmentconveyanceofambulancepatientsascopingreviewoftheevidence
AT robertsonduncanj alternativestodirectemergencydepartmentconveyanceofambulancepatientsascopingreviewoftheevidence
AT penningtonelspeth alternativestodirectemergencydepartmentconveyanceofambulancepatientsascopingreviewoftheevidence
AT ratcliffedavid alternativestodirectemergencydepartmentconveyanceofambulancepatientsascopingreviewoftheevidence
AT rockwoodkenneth alternativestodirectemergencydepartmentconveyanceofambulancepatientsascopingreviewoftheevidence