Emergency medical dispatchers' experiences of managing emergency calls: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the emergency medical dispatchers (EMDs) experiences of managing emergency medical calls. DESIGN: A qualitative interview study with an inductive approach. EMDs were interviewed individually using a semistructured interview guide. The verbatim transcripts were analysed using a qualitative content analysis. SETTING: EMDs, without a professional background as registered nurses, were recruited from emergency medical communication centers (EMCCs) within Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: To achieve a varied description of EMDs' experiences, participants were included from several EMCCs nationally, using a convenience sampling. Interviews were performed up until saturation of data, resulting in 13 EMDs from 7 EMCCs being interviewed. All the EMDs were women, ranging in age from 28 to 61 years (mean 42 years), and had worked in emergency medical dispatching between 1 and 13.5 years (mean 6.5 years). RESULTS: The analysis revealed the main category-to attentively manage a multifaceted, interactive task-made up of three categories: utilize creativity to gather information, continuously process and assess complex information, and engage in the professional role. The content of each category was reflected in several subcategories further described and illustrated with representative quotes. CONCLUSIONS: Managing emergency medical calls was experienced by EMDs to attentively manage a multifaceted interactive task. Core parts were described as: the ability to utilize creativity to gather information, continuously process and asses complex information, and engage in the professional role. Our results could be beneficial for emergency care managers when designing training programmes and organising EMD work and the EMD work environment, including further development of dispatch protocols and implementation of regular feedback sessions. Moreover, the results indicate that aspects such as self-awareness and emotional challenges encountered during EMD work could be important matters to discuss during staff evaluations.

A registry-based observational study comparing emergency calls assessed by emergency medical dispatchers with and without support by registered nurses.

BACKGROUND: The requirement concerning formal education for emergency medical dispatcher (EMD) is debated and varies, both nationally and internationally. There are few studies on the outcomes of emergency medical dispatching in relation to professional background. This study aimed to compare calls handled by an EMD with and without support by a registered nurse (RN), with respect to priority level, accuracy, and medical condition. METHODS: A retrospective observational study, performed on registry data from specific regions during 2015. The ambulance personnel's first assessment of the priority level and medical condition was used as the reference standard. Outcomes were: the proportion of calls dispatched with a priority in concordance with the ambulance personnel's assessment; over- and undertriage; the proportion of most adverse over- and undertriage; sensitivity, specificity and predictive values for each of the ambulance priorities; proportion of calls dispatched with a medical condition in concordance with the ambulance personnel's assessment. Proportions were reported with 95% confidence intervals. χ2-test was used for comparisons. P-levels < 0.05 were regarded as significant. RESULTS: A total of 25,025 calls were included (EMD n = 23,723, EMD + RN n = 1302). Analyses relating to priority and medical condition were performed on 23,503 and 21,881 calls, respectively. A dispatched priority in concordance with the ambulance personnel's assessment were: EMD n = 11,319 (50.7%) and EMD + RN n = 481 (41.5%) (p < 0.01). The proportion of overtriage was equal for both groups: EMD n = 5904, EMD + RN n = 306, (26.4%) p = 0.25). The proportion of undertriage for each group was: EMD n = 5122 (22.9%) and EMD + RN n = 371 (32.0%) (p < 0.01). Sensitivity for the most urgent priority was 54.6% for EMD, compared to 29.6% for EMD + RN (p < 0.01), and specificity was 67.3% and 84.8% (p < 0.01) respectively. A dispatched medical condition in concordance with the ambulance personnel's assessment were: EMD n = 13,785 (66.4%) and EMD + RN n = 697 (62.2%) (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A higher precision of emergency medical dispatching was not observed when the EMD was supported by an RN. How patient safety is affected by the observed divergence in dispatched priorities is an area for future research.