评估医疗服务提供者对机构间紧急医疗服务转运的理解

N. Glober, Thomas A. Lardaro, M. Supples, M. Liao, J. Vaizer, Greg Faris, Paige Ostahowski, Daniel P. O'Donnell, Christopher Kao
{"title":"评估医疗服务提供者对机构间紧急医疗服务转运的理解","authors":"N. Glober, Thomas A. Lardaro, M. Supples, M. Liao, J. Vaizer, Greg Faris, Paige Ostahowski, Daniel P. O'Donnell, Christopher Kao","doi":"10.56068/tgxv9507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Interfacility  transfer between hospitals is an integral component of regional healthcare systems. The decisions referring providers make regarding emergency medical services (EMS) level of care and transport modality (ground versus air) can dramatically impact patient care, emergency departments' workflow, hospital length of stay, and EMS resource availability. Limited research has been done to assess understanding of interfacility transport by emergency medicine providers.  \nMethods: We developed six patient scenarios to test knowledge of level of care and mode of interfacility transfer. Seven board-certified EMS physicians determined the optimal answer to each patient scenario. We distributed a survey with the scenarios to regional healthcare partners via a database of persons who utilize or interface with interfacility transport services. We collected answers to the patient scenarios and provider characteristics (primary practice site, sex, age, specialty, years since graducation, provider degree, EMS training received). Descriptive statistics were performed and Fisher's exact tests described differences in correct answers as they varied by specialty (emergency medicine or other specialty), provider type (physician or advanced practice provider), and reported training in EMS level of care.  \nResults: Seventy-six emergency medicine providers responded, including 68 physicians and 8 advanced practice providers. The mean total score on the case scenarios was 66%, with scores ranging from 33% to 100%. The mean scores on questions testing level of care and transport modality were 67% and 70%, respectively. No significant difference was found in test scores between emergency medicine and other specialties (p=0.718) or provider level of training (p=0.799). Training in EMS level of care was correlated with higher scores on the transport modality questions (p=0.003) but not on the level of care questions (p=0.231). \nConclusion: Variability exists in the knowledge of providers on interfacility transport throughout the state. Emergency medicine providers could benefit from education on interfacility transfer resources.","PeriodicalId":73465,"journal":{"name":"International journal of paramedicine","volume":"94 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Provider Understanding of Interfacility Emergency Medical Services Transport\",\"authors\":\"N. Glober, Thomas A. Lardaro, M. Supples, M. Liao, J. Vaizer, Greg Faris, Paige Ostahowski, Daniel P. O'Donnell, Christopher Kao\",\"doi\":\"10.56068/tgxv9507\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Interfacility  transfer between hospitals is an integral component of regional healthcare systems. The decisions referring providers make regarding emergency medical services (EMS) level of care and transport modality (ground versus air) can dramatically impact patient care, emergency departments' workflow, hospital length of stay, and EMS resource availability. Limited research has been done to assess understanding of interfacility transport by emergency medicine providers.  \\nMethods: We developed six patient scenarios to test knowledge of level of care and mode of interfacility transfer. Seven board-certified EMS physicians determined the optimal answer to each patient scenario. We distributed a survey with the scenarios to regional healthcare partners via a database of persons who utilize or interface with interfacility transport services. We collected answers to the patient scenarios and provider characteristics (primary practice site, sex, age, specialty, years since graducation, provider degree, EMS training received). Descriptive statistics were performed and Fisher's exact tests described differences in correct answers as they varied by specialty (emergency medicine or other specialty), provider type (physician or advanced practice provider), and reported training in EMS level of care.  \\nResults: Seventy-six emergency medicine providers responded, including 68 physicians and 8 advanced practice providers. The mean total score on the case scenarios was 66%, with scores ranging from 33% to 100%. The mean scores on questions testing level of care and transport modality were 67% and 70%, respectively. No significant difference was found in test scores between emergency medicine and other specialties (p=0.718) or provider level of training (p=0.799). Training in EMS level of care was correlated with higher scores on the transport modality questions (p=0.003) but not on the level of care questions (p=0.231). \\nConclusion: Variability exists in the knowledge of providers on interfacility transport throughout the state. Emergency medicine providers could benefit from education on interfacility transfer resources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of paramedicine\",\"volume\":\"94 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of paramedicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56068/tgxv9507\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of paramedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56068/tgxv9507","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:医院间转运是区域医疗保健系统不可或缺的组成部分。转诊医疗机构就急诊医疗服务(EMS)护理级别和转运方式(地面转运还是空中转运)所做的决定会对患者护理、急诊科工作流程、住院时间和 EMS 资源可用性产生重大影响。在评估急诊医疗服务提供者对医院间转运的理解方面,目前的研究还很有限。 方法:我们设计了六种患者情景,以测试对护理级别和设施间转运模式的了解程度。七名获得急救医疗委员会认证的医生确定了每个患者情景的最佳答案。我们通过设施间转运服务使用人员或接口人员数据库,向地区医疗保健合作伙伴分发了一份附有情景的调查问卷。我们收集了患者情景的答案和医疗服务提供者的特征(主要执业地点、性别、年龄、专业、毕业年限、医疗服务提供者学位、接受过的急救培训)。我们进行了描述性统计,并通过费雪精确检验描述了不同专业(急诊医学或其他专业)、医疗服务提供者类型(医生或高级医疗服务提供者)以及报告的 EMS 护理级别培训中正确答案的差异。 结果:共有 76 名急诊医疗服务提供者做出了回答,其中包括 68 名内科医生和 8 名高级医疗服务提供者。病例情景的平均总得分为 66%,得分率从 33% 到 100% 不等。测试护理级别和转运方式问题的平均得分分别为 67% 和 70%。在急诊医学和其他专科(P=0.718)或提供者培训水平(P=0.799)之间的测试分数没有发现明显差异。急救医疗水平培训与转运方式问题上的较高得分相关(p=0.003),但与护理水平问题上的较高得分无关(p=0.231)。结论:全州医疗服务提供者对医院间转运的了解存在差异。急诊医学服务提供者可从有关机构间转运资源的教育中获益。
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
Assessing Provider Understanding of Interfacility Emergency Medical Services Transport
Background: Interfacility  transfer between hospitals is an integral component of regional healthcare systems. The decisions referring providers make regarding emergency medical services (EMS) level of care and transport modality (ground versus air) can dramatically impact patient care, emergency departments' workflow, hospital length of stay, and EMS resource availability. Limited research has been done to assess understanding of interfacility transport by emergency medicine providers.  Methods: We developed six patient scenarios to test knowledge of level of care and mode of interfacility transfer. Seven board-certified EMS physicians determined the optimal answer to each patient scenario. We distributed a survey with the scenarios to regional healthcare partners via a database of persons who utilize or interface with interfacility transport services. We collected answers to the patient scenarios and provider characteristics (primary practice site, sex, age, specialty, years since graducation, provider degree, EMS training received). Descriptive statistics were performed and Fisher's exact tests described differences in correct answers as they varied by specialty (emergency medicine or other specialty), provider type (physician or advanced practice provider), and reported training in EMS level of care.  Results: Seventy-six emergency medicine providers responded, including 68 physicians and 8 advanced practice providers. The mean total score on the case scenarios was 66%, with scores ranging from 33% to 100%. The mean scores on questions testing level of care and transport modality were 67% and 70%, respectively. No significant difference was found in test scores between emergency medicine and other specialties (p=0.718) or provider level of training (p=0.799). Training in EMS level of care was correlated with higher scores on the transport modality questions (p=0.003) but not on the level of care questions (p=0.231). Conclusion: Variability exists in the knowledge of providers on interfacility transport throughout the state. Emergency medicine providers could benefit from education on interfacility transfer resources.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Quantifying Threat or Challenge Response of Undergraduate Paramedicine Students During High-Stress Clinical Scenarios The State of Emergency Medical Services Clinician Mental Health in Virginia Demonstration of Doppler Ultrasound Pulse Detection by Trained Prehospital Personnel Influence of Rurality When Accessing Emergency Healthcare During Exacerbation of Asthma Paramedicine Contents
×
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