Marks P J, Daniel T D, Afolabi O, Spiers G, Nguyen-Van-Tam J S
Division of Public Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
Emerg Med J. 2002 Sep;19(5):449-52. doi: 10.1136/emj.19.5.449.
To describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who are not transported to hospital after an emergency (999) call to the East Midlands Ambulance Service, the reason for non-transportation, and the priority assigned when the ambulance is dispatched.
The first 500 consecutive non-transported patients from 1 March 2000 were identified from the ambulance service command and control data. Epidemiological and clinical data were then obtained from the patient report form completed by the attending ambulance crew and compared with the initial priority dispatch (AMPDS) code that determined the urgency of the ambulance response.
Data were obtained for 498 patients. Twenty six per cent of these calls were assigned an AMPDS delta code (the most urgent category) at the time the call was received. Falls accounted for 34% of all non-transported calls. This group of patients were predominantly elderly people (over 70 years old) and the majority (89%) were identified as less urgent (coded AMPDS alpha or bravo) at telephone triage. The mean time that an ambulance was committed to each non-transported call was 34 minutes.
This study shows that falls in elderly people account for a significant proportion of non-transported 999 calls and are often assigned a low priority when the call is first received. There could be major gains if some of these patients could be triaged to an alternative response, both in terms of increasing the ability of the ambulance service to respond faster to clinically more urgent calls and improving the cost effectiveness of the health service. The AMPDS priority dispatch system has been shown to be sensitive but this study suggests that its specificity may be poor, resulting in rapid responses to relatively minor problems. More research is required to determine whether AMPDS prioritisation can reliably and safely identify 999 calls where an alternative to an emergency ambulance would be a more appropriate response.
描述拨打东米德兰兹救护服务中心急救电话(999)后未被送往医院的患者的人口统计学和临床特征、未被运送的原因以及救护车派遣时所分配的优先级。
从救护服务指挥与控制数据中识别出2000年3月1日起连续的首批500例未被运送的患者。然后从出诊救护人员填写的患者报告表中获取流行病学和临床数据,并与确定救护车响应紧急程度的初始优先级派遣(AMPDS)代码进行比较。
获取了498例患者的数据。在接到电话时,其中26%的呼叫被分配了AMPDS三角洲代码(最紧急类别)。跌倒占所有未被运送呼叫的34%。这组患者主要是老年人(70岁以上),并且在电话分诊时,大多数(89%)被确定为不太紧急(编码为AMPDS阿尔法或布拉沃)。每例未被运送呼叫救护车投入的平均时间为34分钟。
本研究表明,老年人跌倒在未被运送的999呼叫中占很大比例,并且在首次接到呼叫时通常被分配较低优先级。如果能够对其中一些患者进行分诊以采取替代响应方式,可能会有重大收获,这既体现在提高救护服务对临床更紧急呼叫更快响应的能力方面,也体现在提高卫生服务的成本效益方面。AMPDS优先级派遣系统已被证明具有敏感性,但本研究表明其特异性可能较差,导致对相对较小问题做出快速响应。需要更多研究来确定AMPDS优先级排序是否能够可靠且安全地识别出999呼叫中采用紧急救护车以外的替代响应方式会更合适的情况。