How consistent are pre-alert guidelines? A review of UK ambulance service guidelines.

Aimée Boyd, Fiona C Sampson, Fiona Bell, Rob Spaight, Andy Rosser, Jo Coster, Mark Millins, Richard Pilbery
{"title":"How consistent are pre-alert guidelines? A review of UK ambulance service guidelines.","authors":"Aimée Boyd, Fiona C Sampson, Fiona Bell, Rob Spaight, Andy Rosser, Jo Coster, Mark Millins, Richard Pilbery","doi":"10.29045/14784726.2024.3.8.4.30","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Ambulance pre-alerts are used to inform receiving emergency departments (EDs) of the arrival of critically unwell or rapidly deteriorating patients who need time-critical assessment or treatment immediately upon arrival. Inappropriate use of pre-alerts can lead to EDs diverting resources from other critically ill patients. However, there is limited guidance about how pre-alerts should be undertaken, delivered or communicated. We aimed to map existing pre-alert guidance from UK NHS ambulance services to explore consistency and accessibility of existing guidance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We contacted all UK ambulance services to request documentation containing guidance about pre-alerts. We reviewed and mapped all guidance to understand which conditions were recommended for a pre-alert and alignment with Association of Ambulance Chief Executives (AACE) and Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) pre-alert guidance. We reviewed the language and accessibility of guidance using the AGREE II tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We received responses from 15/19 UK ambulance services and 10 stated that they had specific pre-alert guidance. We identified noticeable variations in conditions declared suitable for pre-alerts in each service, with a lack of consistency within each ambulance service's own guidance, and a lack of alignment with the AACE/RCEM pre-alert guidance. Services listed between four and 45 different conditions suitable for pre-alert. There were differences in physiological thresholds and terminology, even for conditions with established care pathways (e.g. hyperacute stroke, ST segment elevation myocardial infarction). Pre-alert criteria were typically listed in several short sections in lengthy handover procedure policy documents. Documents appraised were of poor quality with low scores below 35% for applicability and overall.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>There is a clear need for ambulance services to have both policies and tools that complement each other and incorporate the same list of pre-alertable conditions. Clinicians need a single, easily accessible document to refer to in a time-critical situation to reduce the risk of making an incorrect pre-alert decision.</p>","PeriodicalId":72470,"journal":{"name":"British paramedic journal","volume":"8 4","pages":"30-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10910291/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British paramedic journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29045/14784726.2024.3.8.4.30","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

Aims: Ambulance pre-alerts are used to inform receiving emergency departments (EDs) of the arrival of critically unwell or rapidly deteriorating patients who need time-critical assessment or treatment immediately upon arrival. Inappropriate use of pre-alerts can lead to EDs diverting resources from other critically ill patients. However, there is limited guidance about how pre-alerts should be undertaken, delivered or communicated. We aimed to map existing pre-alert guidance from UK NHS ambulance services to explore consistency and accessibility of existing guidance.

Methods: We contacted all UK ambulance services to request documentation containing guidance about pre-alerts. We reviewed and mapped all guidance to understand which conditions were recommended for a pre-alert and alignment with Association of Ambulance Chief Executives (AACE) and Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) pre-alert guidance. We reviewed the language and accessibility of guidance using the AGREE II tool.

Results: We received responses from 15/19 UK ambulance services and 10 stated that they had specific pre-alert guidance. We identified noticeable variations in conditions declared suitable for pre-alerts in each service, with a lack of consistency within each ambulance service's own guidance, and a lack of alignment with the AACE/RCEM pre-alert guidance. Services listed between four and 45 different conditions suitable for pre-alert. There were differences in physiological thresholds and terminology, even for conditions with established care pathways (e.g. hyperacute stroke, ST segment elevation myocardial infarction). Pre-alert criteria were typically listed in several short sections in lengthy handover procedure policy documents. Documents appraised were of poor quality with low scores below 35% for applicability and overall.

Implications: There is a clear need for ambulance services to have both policies and tools that complement each other and incorporate the same list of pre-alertable conditions. Clinicians need a single, easily accessible document to refer to in a time-critical situation to reduce the risk of making an incorrect pre-alert decision.

预警指南的一致性如何?英国救护车服务指南回顾。
目的:救护车预先警报用于通知接收病人的急诊科(ED),这些病人病情危重或急剧恶化,需要在到达后立即进行时间紧迫的评估或治疗。不适当地使用预先警报可能会导致急诊科将资源从其他危重病人身上转移开。然而,关于如何进行、提供或传达预先警报的指导却很有限。我们旨在绘制英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)救护车服务的现有预警报指南,以探索现有指南的一致性和可及性:我们联系了英国所有的救护服务机构,要求提供包含预先警报指导的文件。我们审查并绘制了所有指南,以了解哪些情况建议进行预先警报,以及与救护车行政主管协会(AACE)和皇家急诊医学院(RCEM)预先警报指南的一致性。我们使用 AGREE II 工具审查了指南的语言和易读性:我们收到了 15/19 家英国救护车服务机构的回复,其中 10 家表示他们拥有专门的警报前指南。我们发现各服务机构在宣布适合预先警报的情况方面存在明显差异,各救护车服务机构自己的指南缺乏一致性,与 AACE/RCEM 预先警报指南也不一致。各服务机构列出了适合预先警报的 4 至 45 种不同情况。生理阈值和术语存在差异,即使是已确立护理路径的病症(如急性中风、ST 段抬高型心肌梗死)也是如此。在冗长的交接程序政策文件中,警报前标准通常被列在几个简短的章节中。所评估的文件质量较差,适用性和总体得分均低于 35%:救护服务显然需要政策和工具相互补充,并纳入相同的预警前条件清单。临床医生需要一份便于查阅的文件,以便在时间紧迫的情况下参考,从而降低做出错误预警报决定的风险。
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