Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35012595›Full record

Observational studyScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2022

A registry-based observational study comparing emergency calls assessed by emergency medical dispatchers with and without support by registered nurses.

Klara Torlén Wennlund, Lisa Kurland, Knut Olanders, Maaret Castrén, Katarina Bohm

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Klara Torlén WennlundDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, 118 83, Stockholm, Sweden. klara.torlen.wennlund@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8433-7828
Lisa KurlandDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, 118 83, Stockholm, Sweden.
Knut OlandersDepartment of Intensive and Perioperative Care, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Maaret CastrénDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, 118 83, Stockholm, Sweden.
Katarina BohmDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, 118 83, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

Swedish Research Council funding for clinical research in medicine 20190939
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe requirement concerning formal education for emergency medical dispatcher (EMD) is debated and varies, both nationally and internationally. There are few studies on the outcomes of emergency medical dispatching in relation to professional background. This study aimed to compare calls handled by an EMD with and without support by a registered nurse (RN), with respect to priority level, accuracy, and medical condition.

methodsA retrospective observational study, performed on registry data from specific regions during 2015. The ambulance personnel's first assessment of the priority level and medical condition was used as the reference standard. Outcomes were: the proportion of calls dispatched with a priority in concordance with the ambulance personnel's assessment; over- and undertriage; the proportion of most adverse over- and undertriage; sensitivity, specificity and predictive values for each of the ambulance priorities; proportion of calls dispatched with a medical condition in concordance with the ambulance personnel's assessment. Proportions were reported with 95% confidence intervals. χ

resultsA total of 25,025 calls were included (EMD n = 23,723, EMD + RN n = 1302). Analyses relating to priority and medical condition were performed on 23,503 and 21,881 calls, respectively. A dispatched priority in concordance with the ambulance personnel's assessment were: EMD n = 11,319 (50.7%) and EMD + RN n = 481 (41.5%) (p < 0.01). The proportion of overtriage was equal for both groups: EMD n = 5904, EMD + RN n = 306, (26.4%) p = 0.25). The proportion of undertriage for each group was: EMD n = 5122 (22.9%) and EMD + RN n = 371 (32.0%) (p < 0.01). Sensitivity for the most urgent priority was 54.6% for EMD, compared to 29.6% for EMD + RN (p < 0.01), and specificity was 67.3% and 84.8% (p < 0.01) respectively. A dispatched medical condition in concordance with the ambulance personnel's assessment were: EMD n = 13,785 (66.4%) and EMD + RN n = 697 (62.2%) (p = 0.01).

conclusionsA higher precision of emergency medical dispatching was not observed when the EMD was supported by an RN. How patient safety is affected by the observed divergence in dispatched priorities is an area for future research.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical DispatcherEmergency Medical ServicesNursesEmergency Medical Service Communication SystemsHumansRegistriesRetrospective StudiesTriageEmergency Medical Communication CenterEmergency medical dispatchEmergency medical dispatcherEmergency medical servicesPre-hospital triageRegistered nurse

Identifiers

PMID35012595
PMCPMC8744325

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.