MRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing, UCL, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
North West Ambulance Service, NHS Trust, Bolton, UK.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2021 Jan 6;29(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s13049-020-00821-x.
The role of ambulance services is shifting, due in part to more intermediate, non-urgent patients who do not require direct emergency department conveyance, yet who cannot be safely left at home alone. Evidence surrounding the safety, effectiveness and efficiency of alternate care routes is not well known.
This scoping review sought to identify all studies that examined alternate routes of care for the non-urgent "intermediate" patient, as triaged on scene. Search terms for the sample (ambulances, paramedics, etc.) and intervention (e.g. referrals, alternate care route, non-conveyance) were combined. Articles were systematically searched using four databases and grey literature sources (February 2020). Independent researchers screened title-abstract and full text stages.
Of 16,037 records, 41 examined alternate routes of care after triage by the on-scene paramedic. Eighteen articles considered quantitative patient data, 12 studies provided qualitative perspectives while 11 were consensus or opinion-based articles. The benefits of alternative schemes are well-recognised by patients, paramedics and stakeholders and there is supporting evidence for a positive impact on patient-centered care and operational efficiency. Challenges to successful use of schemes included: patient safety resulting from incorrect triage decisions, inadequate training, lack of formal partnerships between ambulance and supporting services, and insufficient evidence to support safe implementation or continued use. Studies often inaccurately defined success using proxies for patient safety (e.g. decision comparisons, rates of secondary contact). Finally, patients expressed willingness for such schemes but their preference must be better understood.
This broad summary offers initial support for alternate routes of care for intermediate, non-urgent patients. Even so, most studies lacked methodologically rigorous evidence and failed to evaluate safe patient outcomes. Some remedies appear to be available such as formal triage pathways, targeted training and organisational support, however there is an urgent need for more research and dissemination in this area.
由于部分不需要直接送往急诊的中度非紧急患者以及不能独自留在家中但又较为安全的患者的出现,导致救护车服务的角色正在发生转变。对于替代护理路径的安全性、有效性和效率,目前还没有充分的证据。
本范围界定综述旨在确定所有研究中度非紧急“中间”患者的替代护理途径,这些患者是在现场进行分诊的。样本的搜索项(救护车、护理人员等)和干预措施(例如转介、替代护理途径、不运送)进行了组合。使用四个数据库和灰色文献来源(2020 年 2 月)系统地搜索文章。独立研究人员筛选标题-摘要和全文阶段。
在 16037 条记录中,有 41 篇文章在现场护理人员进行分诊后研究了替代护理途径。有 18 篇文章考虑了定量的患者数据,12 项研究提供了定性观点,11 项是共识或基于意见的文章。替代方案的好处得到了患者、护理人员和利益相关者的广泛认可,并且有证据支持对以患者为中心的护理和运营效率产生积极影响。成功使用方案面临的挑战包括:由于分诊决策错误、培训不足、救护车和支持服务之间缺乏正式合作关系以及缺乏支持安全实施或持续使用的证据而导致的患者安全问题。研究通常使用患者安全的替代指标(例如决策比较、二次接触率)不准确地定义成功。最后,患者表示愿意接受此类方案,但必须更好地理解他们的偏好。
这一广泛的综述初步支持为中度非紧急患者提供替代护理途径。即便如此,大多数研究缺乏严格的方法学证据,也未能评估安全的患者结局。似乎有一些补救措施可用,例如正式的分诊途径、有针对性的培训和组织支持,但在该领域迫切需要更多的研究和传播。