Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39893492›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025

An analysis of ambulance re-contacts after non-conveyance: a retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands.

Susanne E de Loor, Tessa Verheij, Thomas Karol, Franciscus G M H M Cuppen, Frits van Dijk, Femke Goldstein, Joyce Janssen, Remco H A Ebben

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Susanne E de LoorEmergency Medical Service, Public Health and Safety Region Gelderland-Midden, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Tessa VerheijEmergency Medical Service, Public Health and Safety Region Gelderland-Midden, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Thomas KarolEmergency Medical Service, Public Health and Safety Region Gelderland-Midden, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Franciscus G M H M CuppenEmergency Medical Service, Public Health and Safety Region Gelderland-Midden, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Frits van DijkEmergency Medical Service, Public Health and Safety Region Gelderland-Midden, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Femke GoldsteinEmergency Medical Service, Public Health and Safety Region Gelderland-Midden, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Joyce JanssenEmergency Medical Service, Public Health and Safety Region Gelderland-Midden, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Remco H A EbbenEmergency Medical Service, Public Health and Safety Region Gelderland-Midden, Arnhem, The Netherlands. Remco.Ebben@vggm.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-conveyance is an increasing part of ambulance care and has to be safe. One of the indicators to measure safety is an ambulance re-contact within 72 h. However, solely measuring the percentage of re-contacts has limited validity as it lacks insight in actual reasons of an ambulance re-contact. Therefore, the aim of our study was to analyze the incidence, reasons and outcomes of ambulance re-contacts within 72 h after non-conveyance.

methodsWe conducted a one year (2022) retrospective study in one EMS region in the Netherlands. Medical records of all non-conveyance runs with a re-contact were analyzed using a framework to categorize re-contact reasons in illness-related, patient-related, professional-related, and unrelated. Re-contact outcomes were measured in terms of (non-)conveyance and mortality.

results585/13.879 (4.2%) non-conveyance runs had a re-contact within 72 h. 547/585 (93.5%) re-contacts could be categorized with the framework. Re-contacts were related to the illness (n = 267, 48.8%), the patient (n = 130, 23.8%), the professional (n = 106, 19.4%) and unrelated (n = 44, 8.0%). Four subreasons accounted for 68.5% of reasons for re-contacts: progression of disease (19.4%), recurrent disease process/exacerbation (18.6%), reassessment and ambulance request by another medical professional (15.9%), and psychiatric disorder and/or substance abuse (14.6%). 403/547 (73.7%) patients with a re-contact were conveyed to the hospital. Mortality rate for patients with a re-contact was 0.5%.

conclusionsRe-contact incidence after non-conveyance is relatively low, with a very small part of re-contacts related to ambulance care professionals making errors in diagnosis or treatment. Combined with low re-contact mortality, this indicates safe non-conveyance decisions. Re-contacts as quality indicator cover a variety of reasons, with almost half of the re-contacts being related to illness. Four subcategories accounted for the majority of all reasons for re-contacts: progression of disease, recurrent disease process/exacerbation, reassessment and ambulance request by another medical professional, and psychiatric disorder and/or substance abuse. Three-quarters of the patients were conveyed, although more re-contacts due to patient related reasons ended in non-conveyance again.

Indexed as

AmbulancesEmergency Medical ServicesAdultAgedFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsRetrospective StudiesEmergency medical services [MeSH]Non-conveyancePatient safety [MeSH]

Identifiers

PMID39893492
PMCPMC11786587

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.