ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
The urgent need for patients' diagnoses and outcome feedback in Germany's emergency medical services - insights from a web-based survey.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pediatric pre-hospital emergencies in a rural region in northern Germany: frequency, urgency, patterns of utilization, and comparison with adult cases.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Observational
- Comparing emergency medical service and walk-in patients in German emergency departments: a prospective multicentre survey.BMC emergency medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGerman Emergency Medical Services (EMS) face growing scrutiny due to regional disparities in quality of care. It is unclear if and how feedback in general is currently provided to EMS staff in Germany, and whether EMS staff receives feedback on patients' diagnoses and outcomes.
methodsA web-based survey was conducted from June to August 2024 among physician and non-physician EMS staff, focusing on current feedback reception and the perceived need for feedback systems.
resultsA total of N = 428 EMS professionals participated in the survey. One-third of the participants reported receiving no feedback (n = 136, 31.8%), while over half of those who did, received feedback infrequently (n = 157, 55.5%). Informal feedback was the main source, with 95.4% of respondents desiring official feedback on the confirmed in-hospital diagnosis, e.g., to learn from previous cases. While 57.5% of emergency physicians occasionally or frequently receive information about the further course of treatment for patients after transport to the hospital, this was reported by only 14.3% (advanced emergency medical technicians) to 29.2% (emergency medical technicians) of non-physician EMS staff. More than 85% of the respondents stated that diagnosis feedback would improve the quality of EMS.
conclusionStructured feedback mechanisms, essential for quality assurance and improvement, are largely absent for EMS staff in Germany, especially for non-physicians. A strong desire among EMS staff for structured feedback on patients' diagnoses and outcomes was found, which could improve quality of care and staff competence development. However, significant infrastructural and legal barriers persist, hindering the implementation of standardized digital feedback systems within Germany's federalized EMS structure.
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.