ArticleBMJ open quality2024
When do medical operators choose to use, or not use, video in emergency calls? A case study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Video-assisted versus telephone-only pediatric emergency calls: a predefined substudy of the cluster randomized CAM-VISION trial.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Trial
- Video-supported telephone triage in emergency primary healthcare: an observational study from Norway.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Video livestreaming in emergency trauma dispatch: an observational study of technological integration with clinical decision-making in prehospital enhanced care services.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Observational
- Primary care video consulting: a view from Northern Europe.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundAn evaluation report for a pilot project on the use of video in medical emergency calls between the caller and medical operator indicates that video is only used in 4% of phone calls to the emergency medical communication centre (EMCC). Furthermore, the report found that in half of these cases, the use of video did not alter the assessment made by the medical operator at the EMCC.We aimed to describe the reasons for when and why medical operators choose to use or not use video in emergency calls.
methodThe study was conducted in a Norwegian EMCC, employing a thematic analysis of notes from medical operators responding to emergency calls regarding the use of video.
resultInformants reported 19 cases where video was used and 46 cases where it was not used. When video was used, three main themes appeared: 'unclear situation or patient condition', 'visible problem' and 'children'. When video was not used the following themes emerged: 'cannot be executed/technical problems', 'does not follow instructions', 'perceived as unnecessary'. Video was mostly used in cases where the medical operators were uncertain about the situation or the patients' conditions.
conclusionThe results indicate that medical operators were selective in choosing when to use video. In cases where operators employed video, it provided a better understanding of the situation, potentially enhancing the basis for decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.