The nature, sequence and duration of professional activities of Emergency Medical Service providers: An observational study to evaluate quality of care using the steps in the EMS care process as described by the SPART model.

BACKGROUND

The quality of care given by EMS staff is in part monitored by routine review of deployment reports that the providers must complete after each deployment. The assessment consists of determining whether a deployment was performed in a medically correct manner and thus whether the clinical reasoning process was appropriate. The time used during the deployment is also measured, as there are often time limits for performing different parts of the deployment and these must be adhered to. One might question whether measuring the time spent really gives insight into the quality of care, and if it might not be more useful to see how that time was spent. We therefore conceived a study to map the EMS care process and evaluate this process in relation to the time used.

METHODS

We used a focused ethnographic study design. Video recordings of EMS deployments in combination with semi-structured interviews of the EMS providers involved, were thematically analysed. This led to insights into the EMS care process and the embedded clinical reasoning. By categorising the professional activities we identified we were able to define a model that describes in general the EMS care process. We reported the first part of this study in which we developed this so called SPART model in a separate paper. In this second part of the study we determined the execution time within a deployment and measured the frequency of occurrence and the duration of the identified activities. We interpreted the operational content and the time variables both qualitatively and quantitatively. We also determined the distribution of activities over the three deployment operational periods (response, on-scene and transport period).

RESULTS

Using the SPART model, we gained insight into the different activities' nature, order, and duration. We could qualitatively judge the effectiveness of the clinical reasoning process, i.e., the quality of care delivered. Generally, the studied cases were followable, and the clinical reasoning process was medically logical. The diagnostic process sometimes continued after the clinical decision, which was not medically logical. Remarkably, this never changed the clinical decision. Although this could negatively affect the quality of care, we found no clinical evidence that this was the case.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated that the quality of care in EMS can be measured by using the SPART model to evaluate EMS deployments. We concluded that qualitative judgment was more important than quantitative evaluation. Interpreting the order of different activities led to the clearest understanding of the clinical reasoning process. It was concluded that knowledge of the exact time used per activity and, in total, had the least impact on understanding the clinical reasoning process.