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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heino, Anssi, Raatiniemi, Lasse, Iirola, Timo, Meriläinen, Merja, Liisanantti, Janne, Tommila, Miretta
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