School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2018 Sep 21;13(9):e0204508. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204508. eCollection 2018.
Some patients calling ambulance services (known as Emergency Medical Services internationally) are not transported to hospital. In England, national ambulance quality indicators show considerable variation in non-transport rates between the ten large regional ambulance services. The aim of this study was to explain variation between ambulance services in two types of non-transport: discharge at scene and telephone advice.
Mixed model logistic regressions using one month of data (November 2014) from the Computer Aided Despatch systems of the ten large regional ambulance services in England.
41% (251 677/615 815) of patients calling ambulance services were not transported to hospital. Most were discharged at scene after attendance by an ambulance (29% n = 182 479) and a small percentage were given telephone advice (7% n = 40 679). Discharge at scene rates varied by patient-level factors e.g. they were higher for elderly patients, where the reason for calling was falls, and for patients attended by paramedics with extended skills. These patient-level factors did not explain variation between ambulance services. After adjustment for patient-level factors, the following ambulance service level factors explained variation in discharge at scene rates: proportion of patients attended by paramedics with extended skills (odds ratio 1.05 (95% CI 1.04, 1.07)), the perception of ambulance service staff that paramedics with extended skills were established and valued within the workforce (odds ratio 1.84 (1.45, 2.33), and the perception of ambulance service staff that senior management viewed non-transport as risky (odds ratio 0.78 (0.63, 0.98)). Variation in telephone advice rates could not be explained.
Variation in discharge at scene rates was explained by differences in workforce configuration and managerial motivation, factors that are largely modifiable by ambulance services.
一些拨打急救服务(国际上称为紧急医疗服务)的患者未被送往医院。在英格兰,国家救护车质量指标显示,十个大区域救护车服务机构之间的非转运率存在相当大的差异。本研究的目的是解释救护车服务机构之间两种类型非转运的差异:现场出院和电话咨询。
使用英格兰十个大区域救护车服务机构的计算机辅助调度系统一个月(2014 年 11 月)的数据,采用混合模型逻辑回归。
41%(615815 名患者中的 251677 名)拨打急救服务的患者未被送往医院。大多数患者在救护车出勤后在现场出院(29%,n=182479),少数患者获得电话咨询(7%,n=40679)。现场出院率因患者个体因素而异,例如,患者年龄较大、呼叫原因是跌倒、以及接受具有扩展技能的护理人员的患者,出院率较高。这些患者个体因素并不能解释救护车服务机构之间的差异。在调整患者个体因素后,以下救护车服务机构层面的因素解释了现场出院率的差异:具有扩展技能的护理人员的患者比例(比值比 1.05(95%CI 1.04,1.07))、具有扩展技能的护理人员在劳动力中是否被视为既定和有价值的看法(比值比 1.84(1.45,2.33)),以及高级管理层对非转运风险的看法(比值比 0.78(0.63,0.98))。电话咨询率的差异无法解释。
现场出院率的差异可归因于劳动力配置和管理动机的差异,这些因素在很大程度上可由救护车服务机构改变。