Can ambulance dispatch categories discriminate traffic incidents that do/do not require a lights and sirens response?

IF 1.4 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY International Journal of Emergency Services Pub Date : 2021-12-16 DOI:10.1108/ijes-05-2021-0026
Ellen Ceklic, H. Tohira, J. Finn, D. Brink, P. Bailey, A. Whiteside, E. Brown, Rudolph Brits, S. Ball
{"title":"Can ambulance dispatch categories discriminate traffic incidents that do/do not require a lights and sirens response?","authors":"Ellen Ceklic, H. Tohira, J. Finn, D. Brink, P. Bailey, A. Whiteside, E. Brown, Rudolph Brits, S. Ball","doi":"10.1108/ijes-05-2021-0026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeTraffic incidents vary considerably in their severity, and the dispatch categories assigned during emergency ambulance calls aim to identify those incidents in greatest need of a lights and sirens (L&S) response. The purpose of this study was to determine whether dispatch categories could discriminate between those traffic incidents that do/do not require an L&S response.Design/methodology/approachA retrospective cohort study of ambulance records was conducted. The predictor variable was the Traffic/Transportation dispatch categories assigned by call-takers. The outcome variable was whether each incident required an L&S response. Possible thresholds for identifying dispatch categories that require an L&S response were developed. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each threshold.FindingsThere were 17,099 patients in 13,325 traffic incidents dispatched as Traffic/Transportation over the study period. “Possible death at scene” ‘had the highest odds (OR 22.07, 95% CI 1.06–461.46) and “no injuries” the lowest odds (OR 0.28 95% CI 0.14–0.58) of requiring an L&S response compared to the referent group. The area under the ROC curve was 0.65, 95% CI [0.64, 0.67]. It was found that Traffic/Transportation dispatch categories allocated during emergency ambulance calls had limited ability to discriminate those incidents that do/do not require an L&S response to the scene of a crash.Originality/valueThis research makes a unique contribution, as it considers traffic incidents not as a single entity but rather as a number of dispatch categories which has practical implications for those emergency medical services dispatching ambulances to the scene.","PeriodicalId":44087,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Emergency Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Emergency Services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijes-05-2021-0026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

PurposeTraffic incidents vary considerably in their severity, and the dispatch categories assigned during emergency ambulance calls aim to identify those incidents in greatest need of a lights and sirens (L&S) response. The purpose of this study was to determine whether dispatch categories could discriminate between those traffic incidents that do/do not require an L&S response.Design/methodology/approachA retrospective cohort study of ambulance records was conducted. The predictor variable was the Traffic/Transportation dispatch categories assigned by call-takers. The outcome variable was whether each incident required an L&S response. Possible thresholds for identifying dispatch categories that require an L&S response were developed. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each threshold.FindingsThere were 17,099 patients in 13,325 traffic incidents dispatched as Traffic/Transportation over the study period. “Possible death at scene” ‘had the highest odds (OR 22.07, 95% CI 1.06–461.46) and “no injuries” the lowest odds (OR 0.28 95% CI 0.14–0.58) of requiring an L&S response compared to the referent group. The area under the ROC curve was 0.65, 95% CI [0.64, 0.67]. It was found that Traffic/Transportation dispatch categories allocated during emergency ambulance calls had limited ability to discriminate those incidents that do/do not require an L&S response to the scene of a crash.Originality/valueThis research makes a unique contribution, as it considers traffic incidents not as a single entity but rather as a number of dispatch categories which has practical implications for those emergency medical services dispatching ambulances to the scene.
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
救护车调度类别是否可以区分需要/不需要灯光和警报器响应的交通事件?
目的交通事故的严重程度差异很大,紧急救护车呼叫期间分配的调度类别旨在确定最需要灯光和警报器(L&S)响应的事故。本研究的目的是确定调度类别是否可以区分那些不需要L&S响应的交通事件。设计/方法/方法对救护车记录进行回顾性队列研究。预测变量是由接电话者分配的交通/运输调度类别。结果变量是每个事件是否需要L&S响应。制定了确定需要L&S响应的调度类别的可能阈值。计算每个阈值的敏感性和特异性。调查结果在研究期间,13325起交通事故中有17099名患者被派遣为交通/运输部门。与对照组相比,“现场可能死亡”的几率最高(OR 22.07,95%CI 1.06–461.46),“无损伤”的几率最低(OR 0.28,95%CI 0.14–0.58)。ROC曲线下的面积为0.65,95%CI[0.64,0.67]。研究发现,在紧急救护车呼叫期间分配的交通/运输调度类别在区分那些不需要对事故现场做出L&S响应的事件方面能力有限。独创性/价值这项研究做出了独特的贡献,因为它不是将交通事故视为一个单一的实体,而是将其视为多个调度类别,这对向现场派遣救护车的紧急医疗服务具有实际意义。
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
International Journal of Emergency Services
International Journal of Emergency Services SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
11.10%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Perceptions of Australian paramedics following the introduction of professional regulation: a qualitative exploration Optimization of new fire department location using an improved GIS algorithm for firefighters travel time estimation The adoption of evidence-based policing: the pivotal role of first-line police leaders across England and Wales The impacts of leadership behaviours on the mental well-being of public safety communicators Towards disaster prevention in community centers: development of a code-based fire risk assessment tool
×
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