A retrospective comparison between non-conveyed and conveyed patients in ambulance care.

BACKGROUND: Not all patients where an ambulance is dispatched are conveyed to an emergency department. Although non-conveyance is a substantial part of ambulance care, there is limited insight in the non-conveyance patient population. Therefore, the study aim was to compare demographics, initial on-scene reasons for care, and vital signs between conveyed and non-conveyed patients attended by an ambulance. METHODS: A retrospective study of ambulance runs from 2 EMS regions in the Netherlands in 2016 was performed. For each ambulance run demographics (age, gender and geographical location), initial reasons for care categorised into the ICD-10 classification system, and vital functions or observational scales (according to the national ambulance care protocol) were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: 54.797 ambulance runs met the inclusion criteria, of which 14.383/54.797 (26.2%) resulted in non-conveyance. There was no significant difference in gender, but the non-conveyance group was significantly younger (48.5 (±26.4) years) compared to the conveyance group (60.7 (±22.2) years) (p = .000). The most common initial reasons for care for the conveyance group could be classified into chapter-9 diseases of the circulatory system, chapter-19 injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes, and chapter-10 diseases of the respiratory system. The most common reasons for care in the non-conveyance group could be classified into the chapter-9 diseases of the circulatory system, chapter-19 injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes, and -chapter-5 mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. The total percentage abnormal vital functions/observation scales between the conveyance (69.5%) and non-conveyance group (58.6%) was significantly different (p = .000). 15 out of 17 vital functions/observation scales are significantly different between the conveyance and non-conveyance group. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that non-conveyed patients are younger, are more likely to be in (highly) rural areas, and more often have initial reasons for care related to mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders (ICD-10 chapter 5). Although abnormal vital functions/observation scale were more prevalent in the conveyance group, 58.6% of the non-conveyed patients had at least one abnormal vital function/observation scale.

Solo emergency care by a physician assistant versus an ambulance nurse: a cross-sectional document study.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the assessment, treatment, referral, and follow up contact with the dispatch centre of emergency patients treated by two types of solo emergency care providers in ambulance emergency medical services (EMS) in the Netherlands: the physician assistant (PA), educated in the medical domain, and the ambulance registered nurse (RN), educated in the nursing domain. The hypothesis of this study was that there is no difference in outcome of care between the patients of PAs and RNs. METHODS: In a cross-sectional document study in two EMS regions we included 991 patients, treated by two PAs (n = 493) and 23 RNs (n = 498). The inclusion period was October 2010-December 2012 for region 1 and January 2013-March 2014 for region 2. Emergency care data were drawn from predefined and free text fields in the electronic patient records. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. We used χ (2) and Mann-Whitney U tests to analyse for differences in outcome of care. Statistical significance was assumed at a level of P <0.05. RESULTS: Patients treated by PAs and RNs were similar with respect to patient characteristics. In general, diagnostic measurements according to the national EMS standard were applied by RNs and by PAs. In line with the medical education, PAs used a medical diagnostic approach (16 %, n = 77) and a systematic physical exam of organ tract systems (31 %, n = 155). PAs and RNs provided similar interventions. Additionally, PAs consulted more often other medical specialists (33 %) than RNs (17 %) (χ (2) = 35.5, P <0.0001). PAs referred less patients to the general practitioner or emergency department (50 %) compared to RNs (73 %) (χ (2) = 52.9, P <0.0001). Patient follow up contact with the dispatch centre within 72 h after completion of the emergency care on scene showed no variation between PAs (5 %) and RNs (4 %). CONCLUSIONS: In line with their medical education, PAs seemed to operate from a more general medical perspective. They used a medical diagnostic approach, consulted more medical specialists, and referred significantly less patients to other health care professionals compared to RNs. While the patients of the PAs did not contact the dispatch centre more often afterwards.