Mobilizing pilot-based evidence for the spread and sustainability of innovations in healthcare: The role of innovation intermediaries.

An endemic challenge facing healthcare systems around the world is how to spread innovation more widely and sustainably. A common response to this challenge involves conducting pilot implementation studies to generate evidence of the innovation's benefits. However, despite the key role that such studies play in the local adoption of innovation, their contribution to the wider spread and sustainability of innovation is relatively under-researched and under-theorized. In this paper we examine this contribution through an empirical examination of the experiences of an innovation intermediary organization in the English NHS (National Health Service). We find that their work in mobilizing pilot-based evidence involves three main strands; configuring to context; transitioning evidence; and managing the transition. Through this analysis we contribute to theory by showing how the agency afforded by intermediary roles can support the effective transitioning of pilot-based evidence across different phases in the innovation journey, and across different occupational groups, and can thus help to create a positive feedback loop from localized early implementers of an innovation to later more widespread adoption and sustainability. Based on these findings, we develop insights on the reasons for the unnecessary repetition of pilots - so-called 'pilotitis'- and offer policy recommendations on how to enhance the role of pilots in the wider spread and sustainability of innovation.

Systems thinking methods: a worked example of supporting emergency medical services decision-makers to prioritize and contextually analyse potential interventions and their implementation.

BACKGROUND: Systems thinking can be used as a participatory data collection and analysis tool to understand complex implementation contexts and their dynamics with interventions, and it can support the selection of tailored and effective implementation actions. A few previous studies have applied systems thinking methods, mainly causal loop diagrams, to prioritize interventions and to illustrate the respective implementation context. The present study aimed to explore how systems thinking methods can help decision-makers (1) understand locally specific causes and effects of a key issue and how they are interlinked, (2) identify the most relevant interventions and best fit in the system, and (3) prioritize potential interventions and contextually analyse the system and potential interventions. METHODS: A case study approach was adopted in a regional emergency medical services (EMS) system in Germany. We applied systems thinking methods following three steps: (1) a causal loop diagram (CLD) with causes and effects (variables) of the key issue "rising EMS demand" was developed together with local decision-makers; (2) targeted interventions addressing the key issue were determined, and impacts and delays were used to identify best intervention variables to determine the system's best fit for implementation; (3) based on steps 1 and 2, interventions were prioritized and, based on a pathway analysis related to a sample intervention, contextually analysed. RESULTS: Thirty-seven variables were identified in the CLD. All of them, except for the key issue, relate to one of five interlinked subsystems. Five variables were identified as best fit for implementing three potential interventions. Based on predicted implementation difficulty and effect, as well as delays and best intervention variables, interventions were prioritized. The pathway analysis on the example of implementing a standardized structured triage tool highlighted certain contextual factors (e.g. relevant stakeholders, organizations), delays and related feedback loops (e.g. staff resource finiteness) that help decision-makers to tailor the implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Systems thinking methods can be used by local decision-makers to understand their local implementation context and assess its influence and dynamic connections to the implementation of a particular intervention, allowing them to develop tailored implementation and monitoring strategies.

Case management for integrated care of older people with frailty in community settings.

BACKGROUND: Ageing populations globally have contributed to increasing numbers of people living with frailty, which has significant implications for use of health and care services and costs. The British Geriatrics Society defines frailty as "a distinctive health state related to the ageing process in which multiple body systems gradually lose their inbuilt reserves". This leads to an increased susceptibility to adverse outcomes, such as reduced physical function, poorer quality of life, hospital admissions, and mortality. Case management interventions delivered in community settings are led by a health or social care professional, supported by a multidisciplinary team, and focus on the planning, provision, and co-ordination of care to meet the needs of the individual. Case management is one model of integrated care that has gained traction with policymakers to improve outcomes for populations at high risk of decline in health and well-being. These populations include older people living with frailty, who commonly have complex healthcare and social care needs but can experience poorly co-ordinated care due to fragmented care systems. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of case management for integrated care of older people living with frailty compared with usual care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Health Systems Evidence, and PDQ Evidence and databases from inception to 23 September 2022. We also searched clinical registries and relevant grey literature databases, checked references of included trials and relevant systematic reviews, conducted citation searching of included trials, and contacted topic experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared case management with standard care in community-dwelling people aged 65 years and older living with frailty. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 trials (11,860 participants), all of which took place in high-income countries. Case management interventions in the included trials varied in terms of organisation, delivery, setting, and care providers involved. Most trials included a variety of healthcare and social care professionals, including nurse practitioners, allied healthcare professionals, social workers, geriatricians, physicians, psychologists, and clinical pharmacists. In nine trials, the case management intervention was delivered by nurses only. Follow-up ranged from three to 36 months. We judged most trials at unclear risk of selection and performance bias; this consideration, together with indirectness, justified downgrading the certainty of the evidence to low or moderate. Case management compared to standard care may result in little or no difference in the following outcomes. • Mortality at 12 months' follow-up (7.0% in the intervention group versus 7.5% in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.15; I2 = 11%; 14 trials, 9924 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Change in place of residence to a nursing home at 12 months' follow-up (9.9% in the intervention group versus 13.4% in the control group; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.01; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 1108 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Quality of life at three to 24 months' follow-up (results not pooled; mean differences (MDs) ranged from -6.32 points (95% CI -11.04 to -1.59) to 6.1 points (95% CI -3.92 to 16.12) when reported; 11 trials, 9284 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Serious adverse effects at 12 to 24 months' follow-up (results not pooled; 2 trials, 592 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Change in physical function at three to 24 months' follow-up (results not pooled; MDs ranged from -0.12 points (95% CI -0.93 to 0.68) to 3.4 points (95% CI -2.35 to 9.15) when reported; 16 trials, 10,652 participants; low-certainty evidence) Case management compared to standard care probably results in little or no difference in the following outcomes. • Healthcare utilisation in terms of hospital admission at 12 months' follow-up (32.7% in the intervention group versus 36.0% in the control group; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05; I2 = 43%; 6 trials, 2424 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) • Change in costs at six to 36 months' follow-up (results not pooled; 14 trials, 8486 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), which usually included healthcare service costs, intervention costs, and other costs such as informal care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found uncertain evidence regarding whether case management for integrated care of older people with frailty in community settings, compared to standard care, improved patient and service outcomes or reduced costs. There is a need for further research to develop a clear taxonomy of intervention components, to determine the active ingredients that work in case management interventions, and identify how such interventions benefit some people and not others.

Identifying core strategies and mechanisms for spreading a national medicines optimisation programme across England-a mixed-method study applying qualitative thematic analysis and Qualitative Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Achieving widespread adoption of innovations across health systems remains a challenge. Past efforts have focused on identifying and classifying strategies to actively support innovation spread (replicating an innovation across sites), but we lack an understanding about the mechanisms which such strategies draw on to deliver successful spread outcomes. There is also no established methodology to identify core strategies or mechanisms which could be replicated with fidelity in new contexts when spreading innovations. We aimed to understand which strategies and mechanisms are connected with successful spread using the case of a national medicines optimisation programme in England. METHODS: The study applied a comparative mixed-method case study approach. We compared spread activity in 15 Academic Health Science Networks (AHSN) in England, applied to one innovation case, Transfers of Care Around Medicines (TCAM). We followed two methodological steps: (1) qualitative thematic analysis of primary data collected from 18 interviews with AHSN staff members to identify the strategies and mechanisms and related contextual determinants and (2) Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) combining secondary quantitative data on spread outcome and qualitative themes from step 1 to identify the core strategies and mechanisms. RESULTS: We identified six common spread strategy-mechanism constructs that AHSNs applied to spread the TCAM national spread programme: (1) the unique intermediary position of the AHSN as "honest broker" and local networking organisation, (2) the right capacity and position of the spread facilitator, (3) an intersectoral and integrated stakeholder engagement approach, (4) the dynamic marriage of the innovation with local health and care system needs and characteristics, (5) the generation of local evidence, and (6) the timing of TCAM. The QCA resulted in the core strategy/mechanism of a timely start into the national spread programme in combination with the employment of a local, senior pharmacist as an AHSN spread facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: By qualitatively comparing experiences of spreading one innovation across different contexts, we identified common strategies, causal mechanisms, and contextual determinants. The QCA identified one core combination of two strategies/mechanisms. The identification of core strategies/mechanisms and common pre-conditional and mediating contextual determinants of a specific innovation offers spread facilitators and implementers a priority list for tailoring spread activities.

Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become increasingly important in the development, delivery and improvement of healthcare. PPI is used in healthcare innovation; yet, how it is used has been under-reported. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the current available empirical evidence on the role of PPI during different stages of healthcare innovation. METHODS: The scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMAScR and included any study published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2004 and 2021 that reported on PPI in healthcare innovation within any healthcare setting or context in any country. The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, HMIC and Google Scholar. We included any study type, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. We excluded theoretical frameworks, conceptual, scientific or grey literature as well as discussion and opinion papers. RESULTS: Of the 87 included studies, 81 (93%) focused on or were conducted by authors in developed countries. A wide range of conditions were considered, with more studies focusing on mental health (n = 18, 21%) and cancer care (n = 8, 9%). The vast majority of the studies focused on process and service innovations (n = 62, 71%). Seven studies focused on technological and clinical innovations (8%), while 12 looked at both technological and service innovations (14%). Only five studies examined systems innovation (5%) and one study looked across all types of innovations (1%). PPI is more common in the earlier stages of innovation, particularly problem identification and invention, in comparison to adoption and diffusion. CONCLUSION: Healthcare innovation tends to be a lengthy process. Yet, our study highlights that PPI is more common across earlier stages of innovation and focuses mostly on service innovation. Stronger PPI in later stages could support the adoption and diffusion of innovation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One of the coauthors of the paper (S. S.) is a service user with extensive experience in PPI research. S. S. supported the analysis and writing up of the paper.

Academic health science networks' experiences with rapid implementation practice during the COVID-19 pandemic in England.

The COVID-19 pandemic offered a "natural laboratory" to learn about rapid implementation of health and social care innovations in an altered implementation context. Our aim was to explore implementation practice of Academic Health Science Networks (AHSN) in the English National Health System during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic through a rapid implementation lens. We organized three 90-min, online, semi-structured focus groups with 26 operational and senior managerial staff from 14 AHSNs in June-July 2020. Participants were recruited purposefully and on a voluntary basis. Participants presented a case study about their approaches to implementing innovations between March-June 2020 and discussed their experiences and lessons learned. The focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts and other documents were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis following a combination of grounded theory and framework analysis approach. AHSNs increased the pace of their implementation work to support the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The disruptive event changed the implementation context which enabled rapid implementation through an urgency for change, the need to adhere to social distancing rules, new enabling governance structures, and stakeholders' reduced risk averseness toward change. AHSNs achieved rapid implementation through: (1) An agile and adaptive implementation approach; (2) Accelerating existing innovations and building on existing relationships/networks; (3) Remote stakeholder engagement; and (4) Ensuring quality, safety, rigor and sustainability, and generating new evidence through rapid evaluations. AHSNs aimed at sustaining implementation pace and efficiency after the acute phase of the pandemic mainly through remote stakeholder engagement and flexibility of implementation strategies.

Implementation outcome instruments for use in physical healthcare settings: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Implementation research aims to facilitate the timely and routine implementation and sustainment of evidence-based interventions and services. A glaring gap in this endeavour is the capability of researchers, healthcare practitioners and managers to quantitatively evaluate implementation efforts using psychometrically sound instruments. To encourage and support the use of precise and accurate implementation outcome measures, this systematic review aimed to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings. METHOD: The following data sources were searched from inception to March 2019, with no language restrictions: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL and the Cochrane library. Studies that evaluated the measurement properties of implementation outcome instruments in physical healthcare settings were eligible for inclusion. Proctor et al.'s taxonomy of implementation outcomes was used to guide the inclusion of implementation outcomes: acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, penetration, implementation cost and sustainability. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Psychometric quality of the included instruments was assessed using the Contemporary Psychometrics checklist (ConPsy). Usability was determined by number of items per instrument. RESULTS: Fifty-eight publications reporting on the measurement properties of 55 implementation outcome instruments (65 scales) were identified. The majority of instruments assessed acceptability (n = 33), followed by appropriateness (n = 7), adoption (n = 4), feasibility (n = 4), penetration (n = 4) and sustainability (n = 3) of evidence-based practice. The methodological quality of individual scales was low, with few studies rated as 'excellent' for reliability (6/62) and validity (7/63), and both studies that assessed responsiveness rated as 'poor' (2/2). The psychometric quality of the scales was also low, with 12/65 scales scoring 7 or more out of 22, indicating greater psychometric strength. Six scales (6/65) rated as 'excellent' for usability. CONCLUSION: Investigators assessing implementation outcomes quantitatively should select instruments based on their methodological and psychometric quality to promote consistent and comparable implementation evaluations. Rather than developing ad hoc instruments, we encourage further psychometric testing of instruments with promising methodological and psychometric evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017065348.

Influence of external contextual factors on the implementation of health and social care interventions into practice within or across countries-a protocol for a 'best fit' framework synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The widespread implementation of interventions is often hindered by a decline and variability in effectiveness across implementation sites. It is anticipated that variations in the characteristics of the external context in different sites, such as the political and funding environment, socio-cultural context, physical environment or population demographics can influence implementation outcome. However, there is only a limited understanding about which and how external contextual factors influence implementation. We aim to develop a comprehensive framework conceptualising the influence of external contextual factors on implementation, particularly when spreading health and social care interventions within or across countries. METHODS: The review will use the 'best fit' framework synthesis approach. In the first stage of the review, we will examine existing frameworks, models, concepts and theories on external contextual factors and their influence on implementation from a variety of sectors and disciplines including health and social care, education, environmental studies and international development fields. The resulting a priori meta-framework will be tested and refined in the second review stage by analysing evidence from empirical studies focusing on the implementation of health and social care interventions within or across countries. Searches will be conducted in bibliographic databases such as MEDLINE, ERIC, HMIC and IBSS, grey literature sources and on relevant websites. We will also search reference lists, relevant journals, perform citation searches and ask experts in the field. There is no restriction to study type, setting, intervention type or implementation strategy to enable obtaining a broad and in-depth knowledge from various sources of evidence. DISCUSSION: The review will lead to a comprehensive framework for understanding the influence of external contextual factors on implementation, particularly when spreading health and social care interventions within or across countries. The framework is anticipated to help identify factors explaining the decline and variability in effectiveness of interventions and assessing the prospects of implementation effectiveness, when spreading interventions. We do not intend to only develop another stand-alone implementation framework but one that can be used in conjunction with existing frameworks. The framework can be honed and validated in future empirical research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018084485.

A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The interrelationships between research evidence and policy-making are complex. Different theoretical frameworks exist to explain general evidence-policy interactions. One largely unexplored element of these interrelationships is how evidence interrelates with, and influences, policy/political agenda-setting. This review aims to identify the elements and processes of theories, frameworks and models on interrelationships of research evidence and health policy-making, with a focus on actionability and agenda-setting in the context of mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: A systematic review of theories was conducted based on the BeHeMOTh search method, using a tested and refined search strategy. Nine electronic databases and other relevant sources were searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature. Two reviewers screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments. Analysis was based on a thematic analysis. The included papers had to present an actionable theoretical framework/model on evidence and policy interrelationships, such as knowledge translation or evidence-based policy, specifically target the agenda-setting process, focus on mental health, be from LMICs and published in English. RESULTS: From 236 publications included in the full text analysis, no studies fully complied with our inclusion criteria. Widening the focus by leaving out 'agenda-setting', we included ten studies, four of which had unique conceptual frameworks focusing on mental health and LMICs but not agenda-setting. The four analysed frameworks confirmed research gaps from LMICs and mental health, and a lack of focus on agenda-setting. Frameworks and models from other health and policy areas provide interesting conceptual approaches and lessons with regards to agenda-setting. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review identified frameworks on evidence and policy interrelations that differ in their elements and processes. No framework fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Four actionable frameworks are applicable to mental health and LMICs, but none specifically target agenda-setting. We have identified agenda-setting as a research theory gap in the context of mental health knowledge translation in LMICs. Frameworks from other health/policy areas could offer lessons on agenda-setting and new approaches for creating policy impact for mental health and to tackle the translational gap in LMICs.

Success Factors of European Syndromic Surveillance Systems: A Worked Example of Applying Qualitative Comparative Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Syndromic surveillance aims at augmenting traditional public health surveillance with timely information. To gain a head start, it mainly analyses existing data such as from web searches or patient records. Despite the setup of many syndromic surveillance systems, there is still much doubt about the benefit of the approach. There are diverse interactions between performance indicators such as timeliness and various system characteristics. This makes the performance assessment of syndromic surveillance systems a complex endeavour. We assessed if the comparison of several syndromic surveillance systems through Qualitative Comparative Analysis helps to evaluate performance and identify key success factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compiled case-based, mixed data on performance and characteristics of 19 syndromic surveillance systems in Europe from scientific and grey literature and from site visits. We identified success factors by applying crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. We focused on two main areas of syndromic surveillance application: seasonal influenza surveillance and situational awareness during different types of potentially health threatening events. RESULTS: We found that syndromic surveillance systems might detect the onset or peak of seasonal influenza earlier if they analyse non-clinical data sources. Timely situational awareness during different types of events is supported by an automated syndromic surveillance system capable of analysing multiple syndromes. To our surprise, the analysis of multiple data sources was no key success factor for situational awareness. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest to consider these key success factors when designing or further developing syndromic surveillance systems. Qualitative Comparative Analysis helped interpreting complex, mixed data on small-N cases and resulted in concrete and practically relevant findings.

Meeting the International Health Regulations (2005) surveillance core capacity requirements at the subnational level in Europe: the added value of syndromic surveillance.

BACKGROUND: The revised World Health Organization's International Health Regulations (2005) request a timely and all-hazard approach towards surveillance, especially at the subnational level. We discuss three questions of syndromic surveillance application in the European context for assessing public health emergencies of international concern: (i) can syndromic surveillance support countries, especially the subnational level, to meet the International Health Regulations (2005) core surveillance capacity requirements, (ii) are European syndromic surveillance systems comparable to enable cross-border surveillance, and (iii) at which administrative level should syndromic surveillance best be applied? DISCUSSION: Despite the ongoing criticism on the usefulness of syndromic surveillance which is related to its clinically nonspecific output, we demonstrate that it was a suitable supplement for timely assessment of the impact of three different public health emergencies affecting Europe. Subnational syndromic surveillance analysis in some cases proved to be of advantage for detecting an event earlier compared to national level analysis. However, in many cases, syndromic surveillance did not detect local events with only a small number of cases. The European Commission envisions comparability of surveillance output to enable cross-border surveillance. Evaluated against European infectious disease case definitions, syndromic surveillance can contribute to identify cases that might fulfil the clinical case definition but the approach is too unspecific to comply to complete clinical definitions. Syndromic surveillance results still seem feasible for comparable cross-border surveillance as similarly defined syndromes are analysed. We suggest a new model of implementing syndromic surveillance at the subnational level. In this model, syndromic surveillance systems are fine-tuned to their local context and integrated into the existing subnational surveillance and reporting structure. By enhancing population coverage, events covering several jurisdictions can be identified at higher levels. However, the setup of decentralised and locally adjusted syndromic surveillance systems is more complex compared to the setup of one national or local system. SUMMARY: We conclude that syndromic surveillance if implemented with large population coverage at the subnational level can help detect and assess the local and regional effect of different types of public health emergencies in a timely manner as required by the International Health Regulations (2005).

Non-infectious events under the International Health Regulations (2005) in Europe--a case for syndromic surveillance.

The scope of the International Health Regulations of 2005 (IHR (2005)) has been expanded. The IHR (2005) are no longer limited to a specific set of infectious diseases, instead they prescribe detection and assessment of any event of potential public health concern regardless of its source or origin. We examine events of non-infectious origin that might fulfill the criteria of a potential public health emergency of international concern under the IHR (2005). These comprise predominately events related to food safety, but also events related to drug safety or of chemical or industrial origin. We argue that to identify these events and assess health effects related to them, existing disease surveillance systems should be augmented with less specific indicator-based syndromic surveillance strategies that use available routine health-related service data for monitoring purposes.

Validity and timeliness of syndromic influenza surveillance during the autumn/winter wave of A (H1N1) influenza 2009: results of emergency medical dispatch, ambulance and emergency department data from three European regions.

BACKGROUND: Emergency medical service (EMS) data, particularly from the emergency department (ED), is a common source of information for syndromic surveillance. However, the entire EMS chain, consists of both out-of-hospital and in-hospital services. Differences in validity and timeliness across these data sources so far have not been studied. Neither have the differences in validity and timeliness of this data from different European countries. In this paper we examine the validity and timeliness of the entire chain of EMS data sources from three European regions for common syndromic influenza surveillance during the A(H1N1) influenza pandemic in 2009. METHODS: We gathered local, regional, or national information on influenza-like illness (ILI) or respiratory syndrome from an Austrian Emergency Medical Dispatch Service (EMD-AT), an Austrian and Belgian ambulance services (EP-AT, EP-BE) and from a Belgian and Spanish emergency department (ED-BE, ED-ES). We examined the timeliness of the EMS data in identifying the beginning of the autumn/winter wave of pandemic A(H1N1) influenza as compared to the reference data. Additionally, we determined the sensitivity and specificity of an aberration detection algorithm (Poisson CUSUM) in EMS data sources for detecting the autumn/winter wave of the A(H1N1) influenza pandemic. RESULTS: The ED-ES data demonstrated the most favourable validity, followed by the ED-BE data. The beginning of the autumn/winter wave of pandemic A(H1N1) influenza was identified eight days in advance in ED-BE data. The EP data performed stronger in data sets for large catchment areas (EP-BE) and identified the beginning of the autumn/winter wave almost at the same time as the reference data (time lag +2 days). EMD data exhibited timely identification of the autumn/winter wave of A(H1N1) but demonstrated weak validity measures. CONCLUSIONS: In this study ED data exhibited the most favourable performance in terms of validity and timeliness for syndromic influenza surveillance, along with EP data for large catchment areas. For the other data sources performance assessment delivered no clear results. The study shows that routinely collected data from EMS providers can augment and enhance public health surveillance of influenza by providing information during health crises in which such information must be both timely and readily obtainable.

Comparing emergency medical service systems--a project of the European Emergency Data (EED) Project.

AIM: The aim of this prospective study was the comparison of four emergency medical service (EMS) systems-emergency physician (EP) and paramedic (PM) based-and the impact of advanced live support (ALS) on patients status in preclinical care. METHODS: The EMS systems of Bonn (GER, EP), Cantabria (ESP, EP), Coventry (UK, PM) and Richmond (US, PM) were analysed in relation to quality of structure, process and performance when first diagnosis on scene was cardiac arrest (OHCA), chest pain or dyspnoea. Data were collected prospectively between 01.01.2001 and 31.12.2004 for at least 12 month. RESULTS: Over all 6277 patients were included in this study. The rate of drug therapy was highest in the EP-based systems Bonn and Cantabria. Pain relief was more effective in Bonn in patients with severe chest pain. In the group of patients with chest pain and tachycardia ≥ 120 beats/min, the heart rate was reduced most effective by the EP-systems. In patients with dyspnoea and S(p)O(2) <90% the improvement of oxygen saturation was most effective in Bonn and Richmond. After OHCA significant more patients reached the hospital alive in EMS systems with EPs than in the paramedic staffed (Bonn = 35.6%, Cantabria = 30.1%; Coventry = 11.9%, Richmond = 9.2%). The introduction of a Load Distributing Band chest compression device in Richmond improved admittance rate after OHCA (21.7%) but did not reach the survival rate of the Bonn EMS system. CONCLUSIONS: Higher qualification and greater training and experience of ALS unit personnel increased survival after OHCA and improved patient's status with cardiac chest pain and respiratory failure.