Suppr超能文献

不需要紧急救护车响应的紧急呼叫:专家共识

Emergency calls not requiring an urgent ambulance response: expert consensus.

作者信息

Woollard Malcolm

机构信息

Pre-hospital Emergency Research Unit, University of Wales College of Medicine/Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK.

出版信息

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2003 Jul-Sep;7(3):384-91. doi: 10.1080/10903120390936626.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study sought expert consensus about which categories of patients from 248 Medical Priority (MPDS) ambulance dispatch codes might be appropriate for a nonemergency response or for whom dispatch of an ambulance might be appropriately denied if the patient were referred to a more suitable health care provider.

METHODS

A Delphi technique was used. Ten physicians, from the specialities of emergency medicine, general practice, and pre-hospital care formed the expert panel but were blinded to each other's identity. Participants received a written description of the operation of the MPDS and the Delphi technique and voted independently by mail.

RESULTS

Using majority voting, 54 dispatch codes (22%) were recommended for a nonemergency response/referral. This equates to 12.44% of annual emergency calls in a typical UK ambulance service (n = 9,021; 95% confidence interval, 12.21 to 12.69%). The kappa statistic (chance-corrected proportional agreement) between members of the expert panel was 0.62 (substantial).

CONCLUSIONS

The recommended dispatch codes for non-emergency response or referral represent a significant proportion of emergency ambulance calls. Theoretically, the implementation of nonemergency responses could have the benefit of reducing accidents involving emergency ambulances and could lead to improved response times for critically ill patients by freeing up resources. It could also support the targeting of patients to appropriate health care providers on first contact with the health service. However, given the poor reliability of expert opinion, further research using clinical outcome data is required to validate the recommendations made in this article before changing existing ambulance response systems.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在就248种医疗优先(MPDS)救护车调度代码中的哪些患者类别可能适合非紧急响应,或者如果将患者转诊至更合适的医疗服务提供者,哪些患者可能被适当拒绝派遣救护车达成专家共识。

方法

采用德尔菲技术。来自急诊医学、全科医学和院前护理专业的10名医生组成了专家小组,但彼此不知道对方的身份。参与者收到了MPDS操作和德尔菲技术的书面描述,并通过邮件独立投票。

结果

通过多数投票,推荐了54个调度代码(22%)用于非紧急响应/转诊。这相当于英国典型救护车服务中年紧急呼叫量的12.44%(n = 9,021;95%置信区间,12.21至12.69%)。专家小组成员之间的kappa统计量(机会校正比例一致性)为0.62(显著)。

结论

推荐的非紧急响应或转诊调度代码占紧急救护车呼叫量的很大比例。从理论上讲,实施非紧急响应可能有助于减少涉及紧急救护车的事故,并通过释放资源提高重症患者的响应时间。它还可以支持患者在首次接触医疗服务时被转诊至合适的医疗服务提供者。然而,鉴于专家意见的可靠性较差,在改变现有救护车响应系统之前,需要使用临床结果数据进行进一步研究,以验证本文提出的建议。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验