ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2024
Perceptions and Use of Automated Hospital Outcome Data by EMS Providers: A Pilot Study.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating Emergency Medical Services Into Health Systems for Continuous and Resilient Care.Public health reviews · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Our primary objective evaluated the perception of emergency medical service (EMS) providers' review of automated hospital outcome data. Secondarily, we assessed participation in outcome review as a means of microlearning to obtain continuing education (CE). Methods: From October-December 2023, three high-volume EMS systems participated in a three-part intervention with results evaluated using a mixed-methods approach. First, EMS providers (emergency medical technicians and paramedics) were invited, via their electronic health record (EHR), to complete a presurvey evaluating their perceptions of reviewing outcomes. Then, EMS providers were notified about the opportunity to earn CE via a microlearning intervention, offering Commission on Accreditation for Pre-Hospital Continuing Education (CAPCE)-approved CE hours for completion of outcome reviews and associated learning modules. Finally, EMS providers were invited to complete a post-survey mirroring the pre-survey. Qualitative analyses identified themes among open-ended responses. Quantitative analyses examined perceptions between pre- and post- surveys. Results: Of 843 providers contacted, 217 responded to the pre-survey (25.7%). The most endorsed rationale for reviewing outcomes included improving clinical knowledge (95%), improving patient care (94%), and knowing whether care made a difference (93%). Nearly all (91%) reported being more likely to review outcomes if CE were awarded. Among the 67 who completed the open-ended items, the three dominant themes included enhance personal confidence and competence (43%); acquire personal knowledge (39%); and operations (21%). Of 211 providers who participated in the intervention, 56 (27%) were awarded CE. A total of 152 providers responded to the post-survey, and the percentage who agreed that reviewing outcomes improves job satisfaction rose from 89% to 95% between pre- and post-surveys ( Conclusion: EMS providers supported the personal and professional development and patient care improvement of reviewing patients' outcomes with associated CE. Further study is warranted to evaluate the generalizability of these findings and the best user experience.
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.