Tønsager Kristin, Rehn Marius, Ringdal Kjetil G, Lossius Hans Morten, Virkkunen Ilkka, Østerås Øyvind, Røislien Jo, Krüger Andreas J
The Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation, Oslo, Norway.
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Mar 8;19(1):151. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-3976-6.
Comparison of services and identification of factors important for favourable patient outcomes in emergency medical services (EMS) is challenging due to different organization and quality of data. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility of physician-staffed EMS (p-EMS) to collect patient and system level data by using a consensus-based template.
The study was an international multicentre observational study. Data were collected according to a template for uniform reporting of data from p-EMS using two different data collection methods; a standard and a focused data collection method. For the standard data collection, data were extracted retrospectively for one year from all FinnHEMS bases and for the focused data collection, data were collected prospectively for six weeks from four selected Norwegian p-EMS bases. Completeness rates for the two data collection methods were then compared and factors affecting completeness rates and template feasibility were evaluated. Standard Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact Test and Mann-Whitney U Test were used for group comparison of categorical and continuous data, respectively, and Kolomogorov-Smirnov test for comparison of distributional properties.
All missions with patient encounters were included, leaving 4437 Finnish and 128 Norwegian missions eligible for analysis. Variable completeness rates indicated that physiological variables were least documented. Information on pain and respiratory rate were the most frequently missing variables with a standard data collection method and systolic blood pressure was the most missing variable with a focused data collection method. Completeness rates were similar or higher when patients were considered severely ill or injured but were lower for missions with short patient encounter. When a focused data collection method was used, completeness rates were higher compared to a standard data collection method.
We found that a focused data collection method increased data capture compared to a standard data collection method. The concept of using a template for documentation of p-EMS data is feasible in physician-staffed services in Finland and Norway. The greatest deficiencies in completeness rates were evident for physiological parameters. Short missions were associated with lower completeness rates whereas severe illness or injury did not result in reduced data capture.
由于数据的组织方式和质量不同,比较紧急医疗服务(EMS)中的服务并确定对患者良好预后重要的因素具有挑战性。本研究的目的是评估配备医生的EMS(p-EMS)使用基于共识的模板收集患者和系统层面数据的可行性。
该研究是一项国际多中心观察性研究。使用两种不同的数据收集方法,根据p-EMS数据统一报告模板收集数据;一种是标准数据收集方法,另一种是重点数据收集方法。对于标准数据收集,从所有芬兰直升机紧急医疗服务(FinnHEMS)基地回顾性提取一年的数据,对于重点数据收集,从四个选定的挪威p-EMS基地前瞻性收集六周的数据。然后比较两种数据收集方法的完整性率,并评估影响完整性率和模板可行性的因素。分别使用标准卡方检验、费舍尔精确检验和曼-惠特尼U检验对分类数据和连续数据进行组间比较,使用柯尔莫哥洛夫-斯米尔诺夫检验比较分布特性。
纳入了所有有患者接触的任务,共有4437次芬兰任务和128次挪威任务符合分析条件。不同的完整性率表明生理变量记录最少。疼痛和呼吸频率信息是标准数据收集方法中最常缺失的变量,收缩压是重点数据收集方法中最常缺失的变量。当患者被认为病情严重或受伤时,完整性率相似或更高,但患者接触时间短的任务完整性率较低。使用重点数据收集方法时,完整性率高于标准数据收集方法。
我们发现,与标准数据收集方法相比,重点数据收集方法增加了数据捕获。在芬兰和挪威配备医生的服务中,使用模板记录p-EMS数据的概念是可行的。完整性率方面最大的不足在生理参数上最为明显。短任务与较低的完整性率相关,而严重疾病或损伤并未导致数据捕获减少。