Refusal to Travel in the National Ambulance Service. A Patient Care Report examination.

E. Byrne, S. Selby, Paul Gallen, A. Watts
{"title":"Refusal to Travel in the National Ambulance Service. A Patient Care Report examination.","authors":"E. Byrne, S. Selby, Paul Gallen, A. Watts","doi":"10.32378/IJP.V3I2.145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionEvery patient has the right to refuse treatment and, or transport (RTT) to hospital (1). The National Ambulance Service (NAS) has operated under a clinical guidance document that requires an assessment of patient capacity and a baseline amount of data to be gathered on every patient to facilitate the patient making an informed decision (2,3). An increase in the rate of non-conveyance of patients and refusal to travel calls as well as an increasing number of complaints prompted a quality improvement initiative based on improving and facilitating a shared decision-making model.AimFor patients who RTT, to establish a baseline quality of information collected and recorded on a Patient Care Report.MethodsAll NAS incidents closed with a refusal of treatment or transport, from 1st Jan 2017 to 9th November 2017 were identified from National Emergency Operation Centre (NEOC). A random selection of 75 Patient care reports (52 Paper and 23 Electronic) were identified and reviewed. Compliance with the refusal to travel guidance document was measured.Results31% of paper PCR’s reviewed were missing a complete set of vital signs. An average of 48.4 % (Median 48.4% Range 36.5% to 61.5%) were missing a complete second set of vital signs. 17.3% of combined forms were missing the patient’s chief complaint and 38.7% had no practitioner clinical impression entered. 24% had no capacity assessment completed.ConclusionClinical information recorded by NAS staff did not meet the clinical guidance document requirements. It is impossible to assess what information was given to a patient to facilitate a shared decision-making model. The quality of NAS documentation can be improved for patients who refuse to travel.","PeriodicalId":367364,"journal":{"name":"Irish Journal of Paramedicine","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-02","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.V3I2.145","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

IntroductionEvery patient has the right to refuse treatment and, or transport (RTT) to hospital (1). The National Ambulance Service (NAS) has operated under a clinical guidance document that requires an assessment of patient capacity and a baseline amount of data to be gathered on every patient to facilitate the patient making an informed decision (2,3). An increase in the rate of non-conveyance of patients and refusal to travel calls as well as an increasing number of complaints prompted a quality improvement initiative based on improving and facilitating a shared decision-making model.AimFor patients who RTT, to establish a baseline quality of information collected and recorded on a Patient Care Report.MethodsAll NAS incidents closed with a refusal of treatment or transport, from 1st Jan 2017 to 9th November 2017 were identified from National Emergency Operation Centre (NEOC). A random selection of 75 Patient care reports (52 Paper and 23 Electronic) were identified and reviewed. Compliance with the refusal to travel guidance document was measured.Results31% of paper PCR’s reviewed were missing a complete set of vital signs. An average of 48.4 % (Median 48.4% Range 36.5% to 61.5%) were missing a complete second set of vital signs. 17.3% of combined forms were missing the patient’s chief complaint and 38.7% had no practitioner clinical impression entered. 24% had no capacity assessment completed.ConclusionClinical information recorded by NAS staff did not meet the clinical guidance document requirements. It is impossible to assess what information was given to a patient to facilitate a shared decision-making model. The quality of NAS documentation can be improved for patients who refuse to travel.
拒绝参加国家救护车服务。病人护理报告检查。
每个病人都有权拒绝治疗和或拒绝运送(RTT)到医院(1)。国家救护车服务(NAS)在临床指导文件下运作,该文件要求对病人的能力进行评估,并收集每个病人的基线数据量,以促进病人做出知情决定(2,3)。由于不运送病人和拒绝出差的比率增加,以及投诉数量的增加,促使了一项基于改进和促进共同决策模式的质量改进倡议。目的对于RTT患者,建立收集和记录在患者护理报告中的信息的基线质量。方法对2017年1月1日至2017年11月9日国家应急行动中心(NEOC)收集的所有以拒绝处理或运输为结束的NAS事件进行识别。随机选择75份患者护理报告(52份纸质报告和23份电子报告)进行识别和审查。测量了拒绝旅行指导文件的遵守情况。结果31%的PCR报告缺少完整的生命体征。平均48.4%(中位数48.4%范围36.5%至61.5%)的患者缺少完整的第二组生命体征。17.3%的合并表格遗漏了患者的主诉,38.7%的合并表格没有进入医生的临床印象。24%的患者没有完成能力评估。结论NAS工作人员记录的临床信息不符合临床指导文件的要求。不可能评估向患者提供了哪些信息以促进共享决策模型。对于拒绝旅行的患者,NAS文件的质量可以得到改善。
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