院前服务机构对地面转运至急诊科的预计到达时间的准确性

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.12.010
Jessica Fozard DO, Brent Becker MD, Tucker Lurie MD, Aizad Dasti MD
{"title":"院前服务机构对地面转运至急诊科的预计到达时间的准确性","authors":"Jessica Fozard DO,&nbsp;Brent Becker MD,&nbsp;Tucker Lurie MD,&nbsp;Aizad Dasti MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.12.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Emergency medical services (EMS) transporting patients to the emergency department (ED) typically call ahead to provide an estimated time to arrival (ETA). Accurate ETA facilitates ED preparation and resource allotment in anticipation of patient arrival.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The study purposed to determine the accuracy of ETA provided by EMS ground units.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We performed a single-center, prospective, observational study of ED patients arriving via EMS ground transport. The primary outcome was the time difference between EMS-reported ETA and actual time of arrival (ATA). The difference between ATA and ETA was compared using the two-sided Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate ETA accuracy for specific types of transports and assess variability by month and time of day.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We included 1176 patient transports in the final analysis. The overall median difference ATA-ETA was 3 min (interquartile range 1–5 min) with a range of −26–48 minutes (<em>Z</em> = −25.139, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). EMS underestimated ETA in 961 cases (81.7%), and 94 ETAs (8.0%) were accurate to within 1 min. The largest difference between ATA and ETA occurred between 07:00–07:59 and 16:00–16:59 (5 min, interquartile range 2–7).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our data demonstrate that prehospital providers underestimate time to ED arrival in most ground transports; however, the median difference between estimated and actual time to arrival is small.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16085,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Prehospital Services' Estimated Time to Arrival for Ground Transport to the Emergency Department\",\"authors\":\"Jessica Fozard DO,&nbsp;Brent Becker MD,&nbsp;Tucker Lurie MD,&nbsp;Aizad Dasti MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.12.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Emergency medical services (EMS) transporting patients to the emergency department (ED) typically call ahead to provide an estimated time to arrival (ETA). Accurate ETA facilitates ED preparation and resource allotment in anticipation of patient arrival.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The study purposed to determine the accuracy of ETA provided by EMS ground units.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We performed a single-center, prospective, observational study of ED patients arriving via EMS ground transport. The primary outcome was the time difference between EMS-reported ETA and actual time of arrival (ATA). The difference between ATA and ETA was compared using the two-sided Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate ETA accuracy for specific types of transports and assess variability by month and time of day.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We included 1176 patient transports in the final analysis. The overall median difference ATA-ETA was 3 min (interquartile range 1–5 min) with a range of −26–48 minutes (<em>Z</em> = −25.139, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). EMS underestimated ETA in 961 cases (81.7%), and 94 ETAs (8.0%) were accurate to within 1 min. The largest difference between ATA and ETA occurred between 07:00–07:59 and 16:00–16:59 (5 min, interquartile range 2–7).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our data demonstrate that prehospital providers underestimate time to ED arrival in most ground transports; however, the median difference between estimated and actual time to arrival is small.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16085,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073646792300598X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073646792300598X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景急诊医疗服务(EMS)将患者送往急诊科(ED)时,通常会提前打电话提供预计到达时间(ETA)。准确的 ETA 有利于急诊科在病人到达前做好准备和资源分配。研究旨在确定急诊医疗服务(EMS)地面单位提供的预计到达时间(ETA)的准确性。主要结果是 EMS 报告的 ETA 与实际到达时间(ATA)之间的时间差。ATA 和 ETA 之间的差异采用双侧 Wilcoxon Signed-Rank 检验进行比较。我们还进行了分组分析,以评估特定类型转运的 ETA 准确性,并评估不同月份和时间的差异性。ATA-ETA 差值的总体中位数为 3 分钟(IQR 1-5 分钟),范围为 -26-48 分钟(Z=-25.139,p<0.001)。急救中心低估了961例(81.7%)的ETA,94例(8.0%)的ETA精确度在1分钟以内。ATA和ETA之间的最大差异出现在07:00-07:59和16:00-16:59之间(5分钟,IQR 2-7)。结论我们的数据表明,在大多数地面转运中,院前医疗服务提供者低估了到达急诊室的时间;但是,估计到达时间和实际到达时间的中位数差异很小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Accuracy of Prehospital Services' Estimated Time to Arrival for Ground Transport to the Emergency Department

Background

Emergency medical services (EMS) transporting patients to the emergency department (ED) typically call ahead to provide an estimated time to arrival (ETA). Accurate ETA facilitates ED preparation and resource allotment in anticipation of patient arrival.

Objective

The study purposed to determine the accuracy of ETA provided by EMS ground units.

Methods

We performed a single-center, prospective, observational study of ED patients arriving via EMS ground transport. The primary outcome was the time difference between EMS-reported ETA and actual time of arrival (ATA). The difference between ATA and ETA was compared using the two-sided Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate ETA accuracy for specific types of transports and assess variability by month and time of day.

Results

We included 1176 patient transports in the final analysis. The overall median difference ATA-ETA was 3 min (interquartile range 1–5 min) with a range of −26–48 minutes (Z = −25.139, p < 0.001). EMS underestimated ETA in 961 cases (81.7%), and 94 ETAs (8.0%) were accurate to within 1 min. The largest difference between ATA and ETA occurred between 07:00–07:59 and 16:00–16:59 (5 min, interquartile range 2–7).

Conclusion

Our data demonstrate that prehospital providers underestimate time to ED arrival in most ground transports; however, the median difference between estimated and actual time to arrival is small.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Emergency Medicine
Journal of Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
339
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Emergency Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to both the academic and practicing emergency physician. JEM, published monthly, contains research papers and clinical studies as well as articles focusing on the training of emergency physicians and on the practice of emergency medicine. The Journal features the following sections: • Original Contributions • Clinical Communications: Pediatric, Adult, OB/GYN • Selected Topics: Toxicology, Prehospital Care, The Difficult Airway, Aeromedical Emergencies, Disaster Medicine, Cardiology Commentary, Emergency Radiology, Critical Care, Sports Medicine, Wound Care • Techniques and Procedures • Technical Tips • Clinical Laboratory in Emergency Medicine • Pharmacology in Emergency Medicine • Case Presentations of the Harvard Emergency Medicine Residency • Visual Diagnosis in Emergency Medicine • Medical Classics • Emergency Forum • Editorial(s) • Letters to the Editor • Education • Administration of Emergency Medicine • International Emergency Medicine • Computers in Emergency Medicine • Violence: Recognition, Management, and Prevention • Ethics • Humanities and Medicine • American Academy of Emergency Medicine • AAEM Medical Student Forum • Book and Other Media Reviews • Calendar of Events • Abstracts • Trauma Reports • Ultrasound in Emergency Medicine
期刊最新文献
American Academy of Emergency Medicine Comments on “Opioid Prescribing by Emergency Physicians: Trends Study of Medicare Part D Prescriber Data 2013–2019" Reply to “Multilocular DWI-Hyperintense Cerebral Lesions in a Child with Mild Head Trauma Suggest Embolism Rather Than Thrombosis” Reply to “Simultaneous Juvenile Stroke and Myocardial Infarction Require Clarification of the Underlying Etiology and Adequate Treatment” Simultaneous Juvenile Stroke and Myocardial Infarction Require Clarification of the Underlying Etiology and Adequate Treatment
×
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