Ambulance dispatch of older patients following primary and secondary telephone triage in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia: a retrospective cohort study

Clinical Roles in the Medical Communications Centre: A Rapid Scoping Review

In recent years, 911 call volumes have increased, and emergency medical services (EMS) are routinely stretched beyond capacity. To better match resources with patient needs, some EMS systems have integrated clinician roles into the emergency medical communications centre (MCC). Our objective was to explore the nature and scope of clinical roles in emergency MCCs. Using a rapid scoping review methodology, we searched PubMed for studies related to any clinical role employed within an emergency MCC. We accepted reviews, experimental and observational designs, as well as expert opinions. Studies reporting on dispatcher recognition and pre-arrival instructions were excluded. Title and abstract screening were conducted by a single reviewer, included studies were verified by two reviewers, and data extraction was completed in duplicate, all using Covidence review software. The level of evidence was assessed using the prehospital evidence-based practice (PEP) scale. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/NX4T8).  Our search yielded 1071 titles, and four were added from other sources; 44 studies were reviewed at the full-text stage and 31 were included. The included studies were published from 2002 to 2022 and represent 17 countries. Studies meeting inclusion criteria consisted of level I (n=4, 11%), II (n=13, 37%), and III (N=6, 17%) methodologies, as well as 12 other studies (34%) with qualitative or other designs. Most of the included studies reported systems that employ nurses in the MCC (n=29, 83%). Twelve (34%) studies reported on the inclusion of paramedics in the MCC, and five (14%) reported physician involvement. The roles of these clinicians chiefly consisted of triage (n=25, 71%), advice (n=20, 57%), referral to non-emergency care (n=14, 40%), and peer-to-peer consulting (n=2, 4%). Alternative dispositions (as opposed to emergency ambulance transport) for low acuity callers included self-care, as well as referral to a general practitioner, pharmacist, or other outreach programs. There is a wide range of literature reporting on clinical roles integrated within MCCs. Our findings revealed that MCC nurses, physicians, and paramedics assist substantively with triage, advice, and referrals to better match resources to patient needs, with or without the requirement for ambulance dispatch.

Differences between the dispatch priority assessments of emergency medical dispatchers and emergency medical services: a prospective register-based study in Finland

BACKGROUND

Responsive and efficient emergency medical services (EMS) require accurate telephone triage. In Finland, such services are provided by Emergency Response Centre Agency (ERC Agency). In 2018, a new Finnish computer-assisted emergency dispatch system was introduced: the Emergency Response Integrated Common Authorities (ERICA). After the introduction of ERICA, the appropriateness of EMS dispatch has not been investigated yet. The study´s objective is to determine the consistency between the priority triage of the emergency medical dispatcher (EMD) and the on-scene priority assessment of the EMS, and whether the priority assessment consistency varied among the dispatch categories.

METHODS

This was a prospective register-based study. All EMS dispatches registered in the Tampere University Hospital area from 1 August 2021 to 31 August 2021 were analysed. The EMD's mission priority triaged during the emergency call was compared with the on-scene EMS's assessment of the priority, derived from the pre-set criteria. The test performance levels were measured from the crosstabulation of true or false positive and negative values of the priority assessment. Statistical significance was analysed using the chi-square test and the Kruskal-Wallis H test, and p-values < 0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

Of the 6416 EMS dispatches analysed in this study, 36% (2341) were urgent according to the EMD's dispatch priority, and of these, only 29% (688) were urgent according to the EMS criteria. On the other hand, 64% (4075) of the dispatches were non-urgent according to the EMD's dispatch priority, of which 97% (3949) were non-urgent according to the EMS criteria. Moreover, there were differences between the EMD and EMS priority assessments among the dispatch categories (p < 0.001). The overall efficiency was 72%, sensitivity 85%, specificity 71%, positive predictive value 29%, and negative predictive value 97%.

CONCLUSION

While the EMD recognised the non-urgent dispatches with high consistency with the EMS criteria, most of the EMD's urgent dispatches were not urgent according to the same criteria. This may diminish the availability of the EMS for more urgent missions. Thus, measures are needed to ensure more accurate and therefore, more efficient use of EMS resources in the future.