Refusal to travel in the National Ambulance Service: A retrospective examination of calls from 2017.

E. Byrne, S. Selby, Paul Gallen, A. Watts
{"title":"Refusal to travel in the National Ambulance Service: A retrospective examination of calls from 2017.","authors":"E. Byrne, S. Selby, Paul Gallen, A. Watts","doi":"10.32378/IJP.V3I2.149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction When a member of the public calls for an ambulance through the 999/112 system, the only permitted course of action for the responding National Ambulance Service (NAS) staff is to convey the patient to an emergency department. Regardless of the clinical level, NAS staff do not have the authority or scope of practice to discharge the patient from the scene or make any other arrangements for the treatment of that person(1). The patient, meeting certain criteria, can refuse treatment or transport (RTT) of their own volition(1). Mortality rates for non-conveyed patients vary from 0.2%-3.5% within 24hours and are twice those of patients discharged from an emergency department(2, 3). In 2017, the refusal to travel rate in Ireland jumped from 7-8% of calls (2012-2014) to a national average of 11.3% (24,735) of total AS1 calls(4). Although this level of non-conveyance would still be below international norms the rate of increase was concerning(3).Aim.A quality improvement initiative necessitated identification of baseline RTT information.MethodsRetrospective data collection was conducted on all calls closed with a ‘refusal to travel’ or ‘refusal of treatment’ occurring between 1st Jan 2017 and 9th Nov 2017 and was gathered from the National Emergency Operations Centre (NEOC).ResultsThe top three dispatch classification that resulted in RTT were falls, unconsciousness or near fainting, and generally unwell patients. This was followed by chest pain, seizures, traffic incidents and breathing problems. It was noted that the time at which RTT calls occurred peaked nationally between 2000 and 2059. In the Southern area, peak RTT occurred between 2000-2059h and 0000-0100. 33.6% of RTT calls in the Southern Area were designated as Delta calls. This designation requires an advanced life support and a blue light response and is the call level with the second highest acuity below an Echo call, the designation for Cardiac or Respiratory arrest.ConclusionsThe NAS specifically utilises a risk adverse triage system. Examination of dispatch priorities may be warranted. The peak close of RTT calls between 2000-2059 may align with a shift changeover at 2000. Further study is required.","PeriodicalId":367364,"journal":{"name":"Irish Journal of Paramedicine","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Irish Journal of Paramedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32378/IJP.V3I2.149","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction When a member of the public calls for an ambulance through the 999/112 system, the only permitted course of action for the responding National Ambulance Service (NAS) staff is to convey the patient to an emergency department. Regardless of the clinical level, NAS staff do not have the authority or scope of practice to discharge the patient from the scene or make any other arrangements for the treatment of that person(1). The patient, meeting certain criteria, can refuse treatment or transport (RTT) of their own volition(1). Mortality rates for non-conveyed patients vary from 0.2%-3.5% within 24hours and are twice those of patients discharged from an emergency department(2, 3). In 2017, the refusal to travel rate in Ireland jumped from 7-8% of calls (2012-2014) to a national average of 11.3% (24,735) of total AS1 calls(4). Although this level of non-conveyance would still be below international norms the rate of increase was concerning(3).Aim.A quality improvement initiative necessitated identification of baseline RTT information.MethodsRetrospective data collection was conducted on all calls closed with a ‘refusal to travel’ or ‘refusal of treatment’ occurring between 1st Jan 2017 and 9th Nov 2017 and was gathered from the National Emergency Operations Centre (NEOC).ResultsThe top three dispatch classification that resulted in RTT were falls, unconsciousness or near fainting, and generally unwell patients. This was followed by chest pain, seizures, traffic incidents and breathing problems. It was noted that the time at which RTT calls occurred peaked nationally between 2000 and 2059. In the Southern area, peak RTT occurred between 2000-2059h and 0000-0100. 33.6% of RTT calls in the Southern Area were designated as Delta calls. This designation requires an advanced life support and a blue light response and is the call level with the second highest acuity below an Echo call, the designation for Cardiac or Respiratory arrest.ConclusionsThe NAS specifically utilises a risk adverse triage system. Examination of dispatch priorities may be warranted. The peak close of RTT calls between 2000-2059 may align with a shift changeover at 2000. Further study is required.
拒绝在国家救护车服务中旅行:对2017年电话的回顾性检查。
当公众通过999/112系统呼叫救护车时,国家救护车服务(NAS)工作人员唯一允许的行动是将病人送到急诊室。无论临床水平如何,NAS工作人员都没有权力或执业范围将患者从现场出院或为该患者的治疗做出任何其他安排(1)。符合一定标准的患者可以自愿拒绝治疗或转运(RTT)(1)。未转运患者的死亡率在24小时内从0.2%-3.5%不等,是急诊科出院患者的两倍(2,3)。2017年,爱尔兰的拒绝旅行率从7-8%(2012-2014)跃升至全国平均水平11.3% (24,735)AS1总呼叫(4)。虽然这种不转让的水平仍将低于国际标准,但增长率令人担忧。一个质量改进计划需要确定基线RTT信息。方法回顾性收集2017年1月1日至2017年11月9日期间发生的所有以“拒绝旅行”或“拒绝治疗”结束的呼叫,并从国家紧急行动中心(NEOC)收集数据。结果导致RTT的前3位调度分类为跌倒、意识不清或接近昏厥和一般不适患者。其次是胸痛、癫痫、交通事故和呼吸问题。有人指出,在2000年至2059年期间,RTT呼叫在全国达到高峰。南部地区RTT高峰出现在2000-2059h和0000-0100 h之间。在南部地区,33.6%的RTT呼叫被指定为达美呼叫。这一级别需要先进的生命支持和蓝光响应,是呼叫级别第二高的灵敏度低于回声呼叫,心脏或呼吸骤停的指示。结论NAS特别采用了风险不良分类系统。可能有必要审查派遣的优先次序。2000-2059年期间RTT呼叫的峰值关闭可能与2000年的轮班转换一致。需要进一步研究。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信