[Direct admission of patients to doctors' offices by prehospital emergency services-an effective method to relieve emergency departments? : Analysis of routine pre- and in-hospital emergency data]

[Pre-emptive emergency service-Preventive missions and promotion of health literacy at the intersections with emergency medical services]

In the Emergency Medical Service Acts of the Federal States, the statements in these Acts have so far essentially been limited to the implementation of measures to maintain the health of emergency patients and to transport them to a suitable hospital. Preventive fire protection, on the other hand, is regulated in the Fire Brigade Acts or by statutory ordinances. Increasing numbers of emergency service missions and a lack of facilities for alternative care justify the need for a preventive emergency service. This includes all measures that take place before an event occurs in order to prevent emergencies from occurring. As a result, the risk of an emergency event leading to the emergency call 112 should be reduced or delayed. The preventive rescue service should also help to improve the outcome of medical care for patients. Furthermore, it should be made possible to provide those seeking help with a suitable form of care at an early stage.

[Initial preclinical assessment on-site]

Emergency personnel assess their patients as an essential part of their daily work in emergency settings. The clinical assessment can help differentiate between immediately life-threatening conditions and milder diseases in patients. This assessment is the basis for an adequate preclinical treatment and for a rational referral to the hospital providing further care. Carried out in a thoughtful manner it allows reasonable allocation of resources for inpatient care.Well-founded training, clinical experience, scores, and tools in the form of acronyms for assessing the patient lead to successful assessments according to quality standards.The preclinical initial assessment is crucial for ensuring appropriate care for patients on site with life-threatening conditions as well as those with minor problems. Prioritization of a treatment depends on the severity of the condition or injury.

[Quo vadis joint emergency dispatch system?]

The call volume in emergency medical service (EMS) dispatch centers has seen a drastic increase for many years now, especially looking at urban regions of Germany. In this context, the control mechanisms of the EMS dispatch center can be utilized to break new ground regarding the handling of emergency calls and dispatch practice in order to manage incoming calls as efficiently as possible. This article clearly explains standardized protocol-based emergency medical call taking, internal structuring of control centers and pathways, also during the COVID-19 pandemic, using the Berlin EMS dispatch center as an example. The terms structured and standardized protocol-based emergency medical call taking should be differentiated, whereby the standardized call taking process is more binding and based on international standards with high reliability. Quality management measures ensure that the protocol is applied in accordance with the regulations. Improved collaboration and automated transfer of data between EMS dispatch centers and the control centers for non-life-threatening physician on-call services enable low-priority calls to be forwarded on a regular basis. Interprofessional teams in EMS can improve the care of specific patient groups in a targeted manner and avoid transport to emergency departments. Standardized protocol-based and software-based emergency call taking currently represents best practice according to medical science, supporting a nationwide implementation. Furthermore, an intensive collaboration between EMS control centers and control centers for non-life-threatening physician on-call services is recommended as well as the introduction of specialized EMS resources and app-based alerting of first responders.

Redirecting emergency medical services patients with unmet primary care needs: the perspective of paramedics on feasibility and acceptance of an alternative care path in a qualitative investigation from Berlin, Germany

Background

Against the backdrop of emergency department (ED) overcrowding, patients’ potential redirection to outpatient care structures is a subject of current political debate in Germany. It was suggested in this context that suitable lower-urgency cases could be transported directly to primary care practices by emergency medical services (EMS), thus bypassing the ED. However, practicality is discussed controversially. This qualitative study aimed to capture the perspective of EMS personnel on potential patient redirection concepts.

Methods

We conducted qualitative, semi-structured phone interviews with 24 paramedics. Interviews were concluded after attainment of thematic saturation. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and qualitative content analysis was performed.

Results

Technical and organizational feasibility of patients’ redirection was predominantly seen as limited (theme: “feasible, but only under certain conditions”) or even impossible (theme: “actually not feasible”), based on a wide spectrum of potential barriers. Prominently voiced reasons were restrictions in personnel resources in both EMS and ambulatory care, as well as concerns for patient safety ascribed to a restricted diagnostic scope. Concerning logistics, alternative transport options were assessed as preferable. Regarding acceptance by stakeholders, the potential for releasing ED caseload was described as a factor potentially promoting adoption, while doubt was raised regarding acceptance by EMS personnel, as their workload was expected to conversely increase. Paramedics predominantly did not consider transporting lower-urgency cases as their responsibility, or even as necessary. Participants were markedly concerned of EMS being misused for taxi services in this context and worried about negative impact for critically ill patients, as to vehicles and personnel being potentially tied up in unnecessary transports. As to acceptance on the patients’ side, interview participants surmised a potential openness to redirection if this would be associated with benefits like shorter wait times and accompanied by proper explanation.

Conclusions

Interviews with EMS staff highlighted considerable doubts about the general possibility of a direct redirection to primary care as to considerable logistic challenges in a situation of strained EMS resources, as well as patient safety concerns. Plans for redirection schemes should consider paramedics’ perspective and ensure a provision of EMS with the resources required to function in a changing care environment.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-022-00660-2.