Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30240418›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Why do ambulance services have different non-transport rates? A national cross sectional study.

Alicia O'Cathain, Richard Jacques, Tony Stone, Janette Turner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Changing role of EMS -analyses of non-conveyed and conveyed patients in Finland.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2020
    Article
  18. Observational
  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alicia O'CathainSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4033-506X
Richard JacquesSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6710-5403
Tony StoneSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Janette TurnerSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
University of Sheffield · GB

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/13/54/75
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSome patients calling ambulance services (known as Emergency Medical Services internationally) are not transported to hospital. In England, national ambulance quality indicators show considerable variation in non-transport rates between the ten large regional ambulance services. The aim of this study was to explain variation between ambulance services in two types of non-transport: discharge at scene and telephone advice.

methodsMixed model logistic regressions using one month of data (November 2014) from the Computer Aided Despatch systems of the ten large regional ambulance services in England.

results41% (251 677/615 815) of patients calling ambulance services were not transported to hospital. Most were discharged at scene after attendance by an ambulance (29% n = 182 479) and a small percentage were given telephone advice (7% n = 40 679). Discharge at scene rates varied by patient-level factors e.g. they were higher for elderly patients, where the reason for calling was falls, and for patients attended by paramedics with extended skills. These patient-level factors did not explain variation between ambulance services. After adjustment for patient-level factors, the following ambulance service level factors explained variation in discharge at scene rates: proportion of patients attended by paramedics with extended skills (odds ratio 1.05 (95% CI 1.04, 1.07)), the perception of ambulance service staff that paramedics with extended skills were established and valued within the workforce (odds ratio 1.84 (1.45, 2.33), and the perception of ambulance service staff that senior management viewed non-transport as risky (odds ratio 0.78 (0.63, 0.98)). Variation in telephone advice rates could not be explained.

conclusionsVariation in discharge at scene rates was explained by differences in workforce configuration and managerial motivation, factors that are largely modifiable by ambulance services.

Indexed as

AmbulancesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesEmergency Medical TechniciansEnglandFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHumansInfantInfant, Newborn

Identifiers

PMID30240418
PMCPMC6150527
OpenAlexW2892121229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.