RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: National and regional systems for emergency medical care provision may differ greatly. We sought to determine whether or not physicians are utilized in prehospital care and to what extent they are present in differentEuropean countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We collected information on 32 European countries by reviewing publications and sending questionnaires to authors of relevant articles as well as to officials of ministries of health (or equivalent), representatives of national societies in emergency medicine, or well-known experts in the specialty. RESULTS: Thirty of the 32 of European countries we studied (94%) employ physicians in prehospital emergency medical services. In 17 of the 32 (53%), general practitioners also participate in prehospital emergency care. Emergency system models were described as Franco-German in 27 countries (84%), as hybrid in 17 (53%), and as Anglo-American in 14 (44%). Multiple models were present simultaneously in 17 countries (53%). We were able to differentiate between national prehospital emergency systems with a novel classification based on tiers reflecting the degree of physician utilization in the countries. We also grouped the national systems by average population and area served. CONCLUSION: There are notable differences in system designs and intensity of physician utilization between different geographic areas, countries, and regions in Europe. Several archetypal models (Franco-German, hybrid, and Anglo- American) exist simultaneously across Europe.
OBJETIVO: Los sistemas nacionales y regionales de prestación de atención médica a las emergencias pueden diferir mucho entre sí. Se buscó dilucidar la presencia de médicos en la atención prehospitalaria y su implantación en los diferentes países europeos. METODO: Se analizaron los datos de 32 países europeos recogidos mediante la revisión de artículos publicados y a través de cuestionarios enviados a los autores de artículos científicos pertinentes, funcionarios del ministerio de sanidad (o equivalente), representantes de sociedades nacionales de medicina de urgencias o expertos reconocidos en medicina de urgencias. RESULTADOS: Treinta de los 32 países europeos investigados (94%) disponen de médicos en los servicios de emergencias prehospitalarios. En 17 de 32 (53%), los médicos generalistas también participan en la atención a las emergencias prehospitalarias. Los modelos de los sistemas de emergencias médicas (SEM) se describieron como francoalemanes en 27 países (84%), híbridos en 17 (53%) o angloamericanos en 14 (44%). En 17 países (53%), coexistían diferentes modelos. Utilizando una nueva forma de clasificación por niveles, basada en la población media y el área atendida por el SEM prehospitalario, se pudieron diferenciar claramente los diferentes modelos existentes. CONCLUSIONES: Se observan notables diferencias en los diseños de los SEM y en la presencia de los médicos entre las diferentes áreas geográficas, países y regiones de Europa. Coexisten varios modelos (francoalemán, híbrido y angloamericano), algunos simultáneamente, en los diferentes países.
Asunto(s)
Servicios Médicos de Urgencia , Medicina de Emergencia , Médicos , Humanos , Europa (Continente) , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Antecedentes: Los sistemas nacionales y regionales de prestación de atención médica a las emergencias pueden diferir mucho entre sí. Se buscó dilucidar la presencia de médicos en la atención prehospitalaria y su implantación en los diferentes países europeos. Métodos: Se analizaron los datos de 32 países europeos recogidos mediante la revisión de artículos publicados y a través de cuestionarios enviados a los autores de artículos científicos pertinentes, funcionarios del ministerio de sanidad (o equivalente), representantes de sociedades nacionales de medicina de urgencias o expertos reconocidos en medicina de urgencias. Resultados: Treinta de los 32 países europeos investigados (94%) disponen de médicos en los servicios de emergencias prehospitalarios. En 17 de 32 (53%), los médicos generalistas también participan en la atención a las emergencias prehospitalarias. Los modelos de los sistemas de emergencias médicas (SEM) se describieron como francoalemanes en 27 países (84%), híbridos en 17 (53%) o angloamericanos en 14 (44%). En 17 países (53%), coexistían diferentes modelos. Utilizando una nueva forma de clasificación por niveles, basada en la población media y el área atendida por el SEM prehospitalario, se pudieron diferenciar claramente los diferentes modelos existentes. Conclusiones: Se observan notables diferencias en los diseños de los SEM y en la presencia de los médicos entre las diferentes áreas geográficas, países y regiones de Europa. Coexisten varios modelos (francoalemán, híbrido y angloamericano), algunos simultáneamente, en los diferentes países. (AU)
Background: National and regional systems for emergency medical care provision may differ greatly. We sought to determine whether or not physicians are utilized in prehospital care and to what extent they are present in different European countries. Methods: We collected information on 32 European countries by reviewing publications and sending questionnairesto authors of relevant articles as well as to officials of ministries of health (or equivalent), representatives of national societies in emergency medicine, or well-known experts in the specialty. Results: Thirty of the 32 of European countries we studied (94%) employ physicians in prehospital emergency medical services. In 17 of the 32 (53%), general practitioners also participate in prehospital emergency care. Emergency system models were described as Franco-German in 27 countries (84%), as hybrid in 17 (53%), and as Anglo-American in 14(44%). Multiple models were present simultaneously in 17 countries (53%). We were able to differentiate between national prehospital emergency systems with a novel classification based on tiers reflecting the degree of physician utilization in the countries. We also grouped the national systems by average population and area served. Conclusions: There are notable differences in system designs and intensity of physician utilization between different geographic areas, countries, and regions in Europe. Several archetypal models (Franco-German, hybrid, and AngloAmerican) exist simultaneously across Europe. (AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Médicos , Servicios Médicos de Urgencia , Servicios Prehospitalarios , Unión Europea , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Atención a la SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The implementation of evidence based practice is essential in clinical practice. However, it is still a challenge in critical care patients. AIM: To identify the barriers for conducting research that nursing professionals perceive in intensive care and medical emergency departments, as well as to investigate the areas of interest and motivations to carry out research projects. METHOD: Cross-sectional and multicentre study carried out in 4 intensive care units and in one Medical Emergency Department emergency pre-hospital carein Catalonia on 2014. The instrument used was The Barriers to Research Utilization Scale which had been previously validated into Spanish. A descriptive and bivariate analysis was performed. A statistical significance of P<.05 was assumed. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-two questionnaires were obtained (69.9% response). Of the total, 135 were from critical care, 27 to pre-hospital care, and 10 from both. Just over half (57.3%) had research experience, although 44.4% had related training. The questionnaire dimension considered most relevant was organisational characteristics. The most important barriers were: there is not enough time at work [3.11 (SD 1.21)], physicians do not collaborate in its implementation [2.99 (SD 1.22)], and nurses are isolated with respect to other professionals [2.86 (SD 1.32)]. Significant differences were observed in the barriers according to research experience and work place. The main motivation was to be updated in critical patient care. CONCLUSIONS: The main barriers perceived are related to the organisation. There are differences in the barriers according to research experience and work place.
