Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ; 32(1): 38, 2024 Apr 29.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38685120

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are a unique setting because care for the chief complaint is given across all ages in a complex and high-risk environment that may pose a threat to patient safety. Traditionally, a reporting system is commonly used to raise awareness of adverse events (AEs); however, it could fail to detect an AE. Several methods are needed to evaluate patient safety in EMS. In this light, this study was conducted to (1) develop a national ambulance trigger tool (ATT) with a guide containing descriptions of triggers, examples of use, and categorization of near misses (NMs), no harm incidents (NHIs), and harmful incidents (HIs) and (2) use the ATT on randomly selected ambulance records. METHODS: The ambulance trigger tool was developed in a stepwise manner through (1) a literature review; (2) three sessions of structured group discussions with an expert panel having knowledge of emergency medical service, patient safety, and development of trigger tools; (3) a retrospective record review of 900 randomly selected journals with three review teams from different geographical locations; and (4) inter-rater reliability testing between reviewers. RESULTS: From the literature review, 34 triggers were derived. After removing clinically irrelevant ones and combining others through three sessions of structured discussions, 19 remained. The most common triggers identified in the 900 randomly selected records were deviation from treatment guidelines (30.4%), the patient is non conveyed after EMS assessment (20.8%), and incomplete documentation (14.4%). The positive triggers were categorized as a near miss (40.9%), no harm (3.7%), and harmful incident (0.2%). Inter-rater reliability testing showed good agreement in both sessions. CONCLUSION: This study shows that a trigger tool together with a retrospective record review can be used as a method to measure the frequency of harmful incidents, no harm incidents, and near misses in the EMS, thus complementing the traditional reporting system to realize increased patient safety.


Asunto(s)
Servicios Médicos de Urgencia , Errores Médicos , Seguridad del Paciente , Humanos , Errores Médicos/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Ambulancias , Potencial Evento Adverso/estadística & datos numéricos
2.
BMC Emerg Med ; 22(1): 89, 2022 05 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35606694

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The emergency medical services (EMS) have undergone dramatic changes during the past few decades. Increased utilisation, changes in care-seeking behaviour and competence among EMS clinicians have given rise to a shift in EMS strategies in many countries. From transport to the emergency department to at the scene deciding on the most appropriate level of care and mode of transport. Among the non-conveyed patients some may suffer from "time-sensitive conditions" delaying diagnosis and treatment. Thus, four questions arise: 1) How often are time-sensitive cases referred to primary care or self-care advice? 2) How can we measure and define the level of inappropriate clinical decision-making? 3) What is acceptable? 4) How to increase patient safety? MAIN TEXT: To what extent time-sensitive cases are non-conveyed varies. About 5-25% of referred patients visit the emergency department within 72 hours, 5% are hospitalised, 1-3% are reported to have a time-sensitive condition and seven-day mortality rates range from 0.3 to 6%. The level of inappropriate clinical decision-making can be measured using surrogate measures such as emergency department attendances, hospitalisation and short-term mortality. These measures do not reveal time-sensitive conditions. Defining a scoring system may be one alternative, where misclassifications of time-sensitive cases are rated based on how severely they affected patient outcome. In terms of what is acceptable there is no general agreement. Although a zero-vision approach does not seem to be realistic unless under-triage is split into different levels of severity with zero-vision in the most severe categories. There are several ways to reduce the risk of misclassifications. Implementation of support systems for decision-making using machine learning to improve the initial assessment is one approach. Using a trigger tool to identify adverse events is another. CONCLUSION: A substantial number of patients are non-conveyed, including a small portion with time-sensitive conditions. This poses a threat to patient safety. No general agreement on how to define and measure the extent of such EMS referrals and no agreement of what is acceptable exists, but we conclude an overall zero-vision is not realistic. Developing specific tools supporting decision making regarding EMS referral may be one way to reduce misclassification rates.


Asunto(s)
Servicios Médicos de Urgencia , Triaje , Toma de Decisiones , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Humanos , Seguridad del Paciente , Derivación y Consulta
3.
Australas Emerg Care ; 24(1): 61-66, 2021 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32682695

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patient with dizziness are challenging in prehospital care. The aim was to describe final diagnosis among patients assessed by EMS as suffering from dizziness with focus on time-critical conditions. METHODS: Consecutive patients assessed by an EMS clinician during 12 months in a single large EMS system in Gothenburg, Sweden (660,000 inhabitants), were assessed. The study comprised patients given ESS code 11 dizziness. The main end-point was the final diagnosis (ICD code). RESULTS: There were 58,575 primary missions, of which 2,048 (3.5%) were assessed as ESS code 11 (dizziness). Of these, 161 (8%) were excluded. Among the remaining 1887 cases, there were 230 different ICD codes and 96 (5%) had a time-critical condition. The majority (88%) had a cerebrovascular disease. The most typical symptoms among time-critical conditions were an acute onset (63%) and nausea, vomiting (61%). When compared with non-time-critical conditions, those with time-critical conditions were older and had a higher median systolic blood pressure at EMS arrival. CONCLUSION: Among primary missions by the EMS, 3.5% had dizziness. Of these, 5% had a time-critical condition and the majority had a cerebrovascular disease. Instruments to identify time-critical conditions among patients seen by EMS due to dizziness are required.


Asunto(s)
Mareo/terapia , Servicios Médicos de Urgencia/normas , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Ambulancias/estadística & datos numéricos , Mareo/complicaciones , Servicios Médicos de Urgencia/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Proyectos Piloto , Estudios Retrospectivos , Suecia , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA