ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
It's time to talk to emergency medical dispatchers: survey study on performance feedback and patient outcome follow-up to EMDs.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerformance feedback and patient outcome follow-up are essential in emergency medical services. Prior literature has assessed the importance of feedback/follow-up on paramedics and emergency medical technicians, however there is a paucity of literature specific to emergency medical dispatchers (EMD). Our objective was to measure the frequency, satisfaction with, and importance of feedback/follow-up received by EMDs.
methodsAnonymous electronic survey study of United States (US)-based (approximately 60,000) members of the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch (IAED). Definitions of performance feedback and outcome follow-up were provided. Survey questions regarding frequency of feedback, satisfaction with feedback, and importance of feedback were scored on a 4-point Likert scale and were summarized with frequency counts and percentages.
resultsA total of 256 responses were received from 13,723 members who opened the email invitation, although not all are US-based. Respondents were predominantly female (n = 163, 63.7%), white (n = 224, 87.5%) and had been a dispatcher for ≥ 10 years (n = 158, 61.7%). Nearly half (n = 119, 46.5%) indicated receiving no performance feedback in the prior 30 days and 77.7% (n = 199) indicated no patient outcome follow-up in the same time period. EMDs were dissatisfied more with the quantity (n = 189, 73.8%) and quality (n = 174, 68.0%) of follow-up, compared to the quantity (n = 102, 39.8%) and quality (n = 102, 39.8%) of feedback they receive. Respondents indicated receiving feedback was important in terms of overall job satisfaction (n = 222, 86.7%), ongoing medical education (n = 222, 86.7%), future patient care (n = 215, 84.0%), and mental health and wellbeing (n = 200, 78.1%). Follow-up was important in terms of overall job satisfaction (n = 208, 81.3%), mental health and wellbeing (n = 201, 78.5%), ongoing medical education (n = 193, 75.4%), and future patient care (n = 187, 73.0%).
conclusionSurvey respondents indicated a paucity of both performance feedback and outcome follow-up and that there is more dissatisfaction with lack of the latter rather than the former. These findings suggest system-wide opportunities to improve communication to EMDs on performance and patient outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.