Cargando…
The development of emergency medical services benefit score: a European Delphi study
BACKGROUND: The helicopter emergency services (HEMS) Benefit Score (HBS) is a nine-level scoring system developed to evaluate the benefits of HEMS missions. The HBS has been in clinical use for two decades in its original form. Advances in prehospital care, however, have produced demand for a revisi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8520267/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34656149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00966-3 |
_version_ | 1784584634528432128 |
---|---|
author | Heino, Anssi Raatiniemi, Lasse Iirola, Timo Meriläinen, Merja Liisanantti, Janne Tommila, Miretta |
author_facet | Heino, Anssi Raatiniemi, Lasse Iirola, Timo Meriläinen, Merja Liisanantti, Janne Tommila, Miretta |
author_sort | Heino, Anssi |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The helicopter emergency services (HEMS) Benefit Score (HBS) is a nine-level scoring system developed to evaluate the benefits of HEMS missions. The HBS has been in clinical use for two decades in its original form. Advances in prehospital care, however, have produced demand for a revision of the HBS. Therefore, we developed the emergency medical services (EMS) Benefit Score (EBS) based on the former HBS. As reflected by its name, the aim of the EBS is to measure the benefits produced by the whole EMS systems to patients. METHODS: This is a four-round, web-based, international Delphi consensus study with a consensus definition made by experts from seven countries. Participants reviewed items of the revised HBS on a 5-point Likert scale. A content validity index (CVI) was calculated, and agreement was defined as a 70% CVI. Study included experts from seven European countries. Of these, 18 were prehospital expert panellists and 11 were in-hospital commentary board members. RESULTS: The first Delphi round resulted in 1248 intervention examples divided into ten diagnostic categories. After removing overlapping examples, 413 interventions were included in the second Delphi round, which resulted in 38 examples divided into HBS categories 3–8. In the third Delphi round, these resulted in 37 prehospital interventions, examples of which were given revised version of the score. In the fourth and final Delphi round, the expert panel was given an opportunity to accept or comment on the revised scoring system. CONCLUSIONS: The former HBS was revised by a Delphi methodology and EBS developed to represent its structural purpose better. The EBS includes 37 exemplar prehospital interventions to guide its clinical use. Trial registration The study permission was requested and granted by Turku University Hospital (decision number TP2/010/18). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13049-021-00966-3. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8520267 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85202672021-10-20 The development of emergency medical services benefit score: a European Delphi study Heino, Anssi Raatiniemi, Lasse Iirola, Timo Meriläinen, Merja Liisanantti, Janne Tommila, Miretta Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Original Research BACKGROUND: The helicopter emergency services (HEMS) Benefit Score (HBS) is a nine-level scoring system developed to evaluate the benefits of HEMS missions. The HBS has been in clinical use for two decades in its original form. Advances in prehospital care, however, have produced demand for a revision of the HBS. Therefore, we developed the emergency medical services (EMS) Benefit Score (EBS) based on the former HBS. As reflected by its name, the aim of the EBS is to measure the benefits produced by the whole EMS systems to patients. METHODS: This is a four-round, web-based, international Delphi consensus study with a consensus definition made by experts from seven countries. Participants reviewed items of the revised HBS on a 5-point Likert scale. A content validity index (CVI) was calculated, and agreement was defined as a 70% CVI. Study included experts from seven European countries. Of these, 18 were prehospital expert panellists and 11 were in-hospital commentary board members. RESULTS: The first Delphi round resulted in 1248 intervention examples divided into ten diagnostic categories. After removing overlapping examples, 413 interventions were included in the second Delphi round, which resulted in 38 examples divided into HBS categories 3–8. In the third Delphi round, these resulted in 37 prehospital interventions, examples of which were given revised version of the score. In the fourth and final Delphi round, the expert panel was given an opportunity to accept or comment on the revised scoring system. CONCLUSIONS: The former HBS was revised by a Delphi methodology and EBS developed to represent its structural purpose better. The EBS includes 37 exemplar prehospital interventions to guide its clinical use. Trial registration The study permission was requested and granted by Turku University Hospital (decision number TP2/010/18). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13049-021-00966-3. BioMed Central 2021-10-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8520267/ /pubmed/34656149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00966-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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 | Original Research Heino, Anssi Raatiniemi, Lasse Iirola, Timo Meriläinen, Merja Liisanantti, Janne Tommila, Miretta The development of emergency medical services benefit score: a European Delphi study |
title | The development of emergency medical services benefit score: a European Delphi study |
title_full | The development of emergency medical services benefit score: a European Delphi study |
title_fullStr | The development of emergency medical services benefit score: a European Delphi study |
title_full_unstemmed | The development of emergency medical services benefit score: a European Delphi study |
title_short | The development of emergency medical services benefit score: a European Delphi study |
title_sort | development of emergency medical services benefit score: a european delphi study |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8520267/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34656149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00966-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT heinoanssi thedevelopmentofemergencymedicalservicesbenefitscoreaeuropeandelphistudy AT raatiniemilasse thedevelopmentofemergencymedicalservicesbenefitscoreaeuropeandelphistudy AT iirolatimo thedevelopmentofemergencymedicalservicesbenefitscoreaeuropeandelphistudy AT merilainenmerja thedevelopmentofemergencymedicalservicesbenefitscoreaeuropeandelphistudy AT liisananttijanne thedevelopmentofemergencymedicalservicesbenefitscoreaeuropeandelphistudy AT tommilamiretta thedevelopmentofemergencymedicalservicesbenefitscoreaeuropeandelphistudy AT thedevelopmentofemergencymedicalservicesbenefitscoreaeuropeandelphistudy AT heinoanssi developmentofemergencymedicalservicesbenefitscoreaeuropeandelphistudy AT raatiniemilasse developmentofemergencymedicalservicesbenefitscoreaeuropeandelphistudy AT iirolatimo developmentofemergencymedicalservicesbenefitscoreaeuropeandelphistudy AT merilainenmerja developmentofemergencymedicalservicesbenefitscoreaeuropeandelphistudy AT liisananttijanne developmentofemergencymedicalservicesbenefitscoreaeuropeandelphistudy AT tommilamiretta developmentofemergencymedicalservicesbenefitscoreaeuropeandelphistudy AT developmentofemergencymedicalservicesbenefitscoreaeuropeandelphistudy |