Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35524195›Full record

ArticleBMC emergency medicine2022

Reasons for bias in ambulance clinicians' assessments of non-conveyed patients: a mixed-methods study.

Helena Johansson, Kristin Lundgren, Magnus Andersson Hagiwara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC 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. Human errors in emergency medical services: a qualitative analysis of contributing factors.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024
    Article
  5. Observational
  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

3 authors.

Helena JohanssonFalck Ambulans Östergötland, Faculty of Caring Science, Work Life and Social Welfare, University of Borås, SE-501 90, Borås, Sweden.
Kristin LundgrenAmbulanssjukvården Region Jönköpings län, Faculty of Caring Science, Work Life and Social Welfare, University of Borås, SE-501 90, Borås, Sweden.
Magnus Andersson HagiwaraCentre for Prehospital Research, Faculty of Caring Science, Work Life and Social Welfare, University of Borås, SE-501 90, Borås, Sweden. magnus.hagiwara@hb.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of ambulance assignments and the influx of patients to the emergency departments (EDs) in Sweden have increased in recent years. This is one reason the protocol for prehospital emergency care was developed around referring patients for non-conveyance, either through the see-and-convey elsewhere approach or through the see-and-treat approach. However, this protocol has led to challenges in patient assessments. This study aimed to investigate the underlying causes of patient harm among those referred for the see-and-treat approach by the emergency medical services.

methodsThis three-phase study involved a mixed-methods design. Cases of injuries, internal investigations and incident analyses of referrals for the see-and-treat approach in two regions in south eastern Sweden from 2015 to 2020 were examined using qualitative content analysis. This qualitative analysis was the basis for the quantitative analysis of the ambulance records. After the qualitative analysis was completed, a review protocol was developed; 34 variables were used to review 240 randomly selected ambulance records logged in 2020, wherein patients were referred for the see-and-treat approach. Finally, the review results were synthesised.

resultsThe qualitative analysis revealed three common themes: 'assessment of patients', 'guidelines' and 'environment and organisation'. These results were confirmed by a medical journal review. Shortcomings were found in the anamnesis and in the number of targeted examinations performed. The checklist for referring patients for the see-and-treat approach and the information sheet to be provided to the patients were not used. In 34% of the ambulance records examined, the EMS clinicians deviated from the current guidelines for a see-and-treat referral.

conclusionsThe results indicated that the low adherence to guidelines and the patient assessment deviating from the protocol put patients at risk of being harmed during a see-and-treat referral. Measures are needed to guarantee a safe assessment of an increasing number of patients who are referred for the see-and-treat approach, especially the multi-sick elderly patients.

Indexed as

AmbulancesEmergency Medical ServicesAgedEmergency Service, HospitalHumansReferral and ConsultationSwedenAmbulance nurseNon-conveyancePatient safetySee and treat

Identifiers

PMID35524195
PMCPMC9074185

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.