Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15465940›Full record

Trial reportQuality & safety in health care2004

Safety of telephone consultation for "non-serious" emergency ambulance service patients.

J Dale, S Williams, T Foster, J Higgins, H Snooks, R Crouch, C Hartley-Sharpe, E Glucksman, S George

Abstract readCase ReportsClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Quality & safety in health care, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Safety of telephone triage in out-of-hours care: a systematic review.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2011
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

J DaleCentre for Primary Health Care Studies, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. jeremy.dale@warwick.ac.uk.
S Williams
T Foster
J Higgins
H Snooks
R Crouch
C Hartley-Sharpe
E Glucksman
S George

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the safety of nurses and paramedics offering telephone assessment, triage, and advice as an alternative to immediate ambulance dispatch for emergency ambulance service callers classified by lay call takers as presenting with "non-serious" problems (category C calls).

designData for this study were collected as part of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial reported elsewhere. The intervention arm of the trial comprised nurse or paramedic telephone consultation using a computerised decision support system to assess, triage, and advise patients whose calls to the emergency ambulance service had been classified as "non-serious" by call takers applying standard priority dispatch criteria. A multidisciplinary expert clinical panel reviewed data from ambulance service, accident and emergency department, hospital inpatient and general practice records, and call transcripts for patients triaged by nurses and paramedics into categories that indicated that dispatch of an emergency ambulance was unnecessary. All cases for which one or more members of the panel rated that an emergency ambulance should have been dispatched were re-reviewed by the entire panel for an assessment of the "life risk" that might have resulted.

settingAmbulance services in London and the West Midlands, UK. STUDY POPULATION: Of 635 category C patients assessed by nurses and paramedics, 330 (52%) cases that had been triaged as not requiring an emergency ambulance were identified.

main outcome measuresAssessment of safety of triage decisions.

resultsSufficient data were available from the routine clinical records of 239 (72%) subjects to allow review by the specialist panel. For 231 (96.7%) sets of case notes reviewed, the majority of the panel concurred with the nurses' or paramedics' triage decision. Following secondary review of the records of the remaining eight patients, only two were rated by the majority as having required an emergency ambulance within 14 minutes. For neither of these did a majority of the panel consider that the patient would have been at "life risk" without an emergency ambulance being immediately dispatched. However, the transcripts of these two calls indicated that the correct triage decision had been communicated to the patient, which suggests that the triage decision had been incorrectly entered into the decision support system.

conclusionsTelephone advice may be a safe method of managing many category C callers to 999 ambulance services. A clinical trial of the full implementation of this intervention is needed, large enough to exclude the possibility of rare adverse events.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalSafetyAmbulancesEmergenciesEmergency Medical Service Communication SystemsEmergency Medical TechniciansEmergency NursingEnglandFemaleHumansLondonMaleRemote ConsultationRisk AssessmentTelephoneTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID15465940
PMCPMC1743899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.