A national perspective of ambulance clinicians' perceptions, experiences and decision-making processes when assessing older adults with a head injury: a mixed-methods study.

Jack William Barrett, Peter Eaton-Williams
{"title":"A national perspective of ambulance clinicians' perceptions, experiences and decision-making processes when assessing older adults with a head injury: a mixed-methods study.","authors":"Jack William Barrett, Peter Eaton-Williams","doi":"10.29045/14784726.2024.12.9.3.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>UK ambulance services employ diverse models of care, resulting in 40-60% emergency department (ED) conveyance rates. Head injury conveyance rates for older adults (60 years and over) remain high (60-70%), despite most being mild. This research aimed to explore ambulance clinicians' perceptions, experiences and decision-making processes when assessing older adults with head injuries, considering the various factors influencing their clinical decisions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design comprising an online survey and one-to-one interviews with patient-facing ambulance clinicians in the UK. The survey, distributed through nine ambulance services and via social media, gathered data about clinicians' experiences, confidence levels and perceptions when assessing older adults with head injuries. It focused on exposure frequency, confidence in assessing asymptomatic patients, perceived risks of medications and confidence in available decision tools. The subsequent interviews delved deeper into the survey responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 385 participants were recruited, predominantly male paramedics (61%), with a median age of 35 years and a median of eight years of ambulance service experience. Participants reported frequent encounters with older adults with head injuries, and expressed high confidence in assessing visible injuries but lower confidence in conducting neurological examinations. Participants found NICE and JRCALC guidelines satisfactory, and reported confidence in conveying patients to the ED but less confidence in alternative referrals or discharges. The interviews revealed two overarching themes: guideline-based care and patient-centred care, with sub-themes emphasising the importance of shared decision making, collaboration with other healthcare professionals and safety-netting strategies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although clinicians express confidence in using clinical guidelines for ED conveyances, they often find such guidance overly prescriptive and struggle to translate them for individual cases. There is a need for more patient-centred, holistic decision making, especially considering the unique aspects of head injuries in older adults. Challenges include fear of poor outcomes, limited feedback on patient outcomes and low confidence in making referral or discharge decisions. Specific guidelines tailored to this demographic, as well as improved support services, may aid in reducing unnecessary ED conveyances.</p>","PeriodicalId":72470,"journal":{"name":"British paramedic journal","volume":"9 3","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11610545/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British paramedic journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29045/14784726.2024.12.9.3.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: UK ambulance services employ diverse models of care, resulting in 40-60% emergency department (ED) conveyance rates. Head injury conveyance rates for older adults (60 years and over) remain high (60-70%), despite most being mild. This research aimed to explore ambulance clinicians' perceptions, experiences and decision-making processes when assessing older adults with head injuries, considering the various factors influencing their clinical decisions.

Methods: This study used a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design comprising an online survey and one-to-one interviews with patient-facing ambulance clinicians in the UK. The survey, distributed through nine ambulance services and via social media, gathered data about clinicians' experiences, confidence levels and perceptions when assessing older adults with head injuries. It focused on exposure frequency, confidence in assessing asymptomatic patients, perceived risks of medications and confidence in available decision tools. The subsequent interviews delved deeper into the survey responses.

Results: A total of 385 participants were recruited, predominantly male paramedics (61%), with a median age of 35 years and a median of eight years of ambulance service experience. Participants reported frequent encounters with older adults with head injuries, and expressed high confidence in assessing visible injuries but lower confidence in conducting neurological examinations. Participants found NICE and JRCALC guidelines satisfactory, and reported confidence in conveying patients to the ED but less confidence in alternative referrals or discharges. The interviews revealed two overarching themes: guideline-based care and patient-centred care, with sub-themes emphasising the importance of shared decision making, collaboration with other healthcare professionals and safety-netting strategies.

Conclusion: Although clinicians express confidence in using clinical guidelines for ED conveyances, they often find such guidance overly prescriptive and struggle to translate them for individual cases. There is a need for more patient-centred, holistic decision making, especially considering the unique aspects of head injuries in older adults. Challenges include fear of poor outcomes, limited feedback on patient outcomes and low confidence in making referral or discharge decisions. Specific guidelines tailored to this demographic, as well as improved support services, may aid in reducing unnecessary ED conveyances.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
救护车临床医生的看法,经验和决策过程的国家视角评估老年人头部损伤:一项混合方法的研究。
简介:英国救护车服务采用多种护理模式,导致40-60%的急诊科(ED)运送率。老年人(60岁及以上)的头部损伤转运率仍然很高(60-70%),尽管大多数是轻微的。本研究旨在探讨救护车临床医生在评估老年人头部损伤时的感知、经验和决策过程,并考虑影响其临床决策的各种因素。方法:本研究采用混合方法顺序解释设计,包括在线调查和对英国面向患者的救护车临床医生的一对一访谈。这项调查通过9家救护车服务机构和社交媒体进行,收集了临床医生在评估头部受伤的老年人时的经验、信心水平和看法的数据。它侧重于暴露频率、评估无症状患者的信心、药物的感知风险和对可用决策工具的信心。随后的访谈对调查结果进行了更深入的研究。结果:共招募了385名参与者,主要是男性护理人员(61%),中位年龄为35岁,中位救护车服务经验为8年。参与者报告经常遇到头部受伤的老年人,并对评估可见损伤表示高度自信,但对进行神经学检查的信心较低。参与者对NICE和JRCALC指南感到满意,并报告了将患者送到急诊科的信心,但对其他转诊或出院的信心不足。访谈揭示了两个总体主题:基于指南的护理和以患者为中心的护理,次主题强调共同决策的重要性,与其他医疗保健专业人员的合作和安全网战略。结论:尽管临床医生对使用急诊科转运的临床指南表示有信心,但他们经常发现这些指南过于规范,难以将其转化为个别病例。需要更多以患者为中心的整体决策,特别是考虑到老年人头部损伤的独特方面。挑战包括对不良结果的恐惧,对患者结果的反馈有限,以及对转诊或出院决定的信心不足。针对这一人群量身定制的具体指南,以及改进的支持服务,可能有助于减少不必要的急诊科运输。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A national perspective of ambulance clinicians' perceptions, experiences and decision-making processes when assessing older adults with a head injury: a mixed-methods study. A qualitative exploration of the views of paramedics regarding the use of dark humour. Chemsex: core knowledge for emergency medical service responders. Comparing telesimulation-based learning and e-learning as remote education delivery methods in pre-hospital practice. 'Endless variation on a theme': a document analysis of international and UK major trauma triage tools.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1