Factors Associated with Increased Use of Cognitive Aids in Emergency Medical Services

Bryan Harmer, Melissa Ivey, John Hoyle, Jr., Kieran Fogarty
{"title":"Factors Associated with Increased Use of Cognitive Aids in Emergency Medical Services","authors":"Bryan Harmer, Melissa Ivey, John Hoyle, Jr., Kieran Fogarty","doi":"10.56068/vgmr5544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Cognitive aids are an essential aspect of patient care within emergency medical services (EMS). Despite their availability in EMS, these aids are underutilized. Understanding factors associated with increased use of cognitive aids can help guide the development of effective implementation strategies. This study examines the association between the frequency of cognitive aid use in EMS and three factors: the use of these aids into initial education programs, policies mandating their use, and clinicians’ perceptions of cognitive aid usefulness. \nMethods: This study used a cross-sectional survey examining the use, previous training, policy, and perceived usefulness of 15 selected cognitive aids. The survey was emailed to 136,093 EMS clinicians in six participating states (TX, ME, MI, LA, SC, and AR). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the examined factors. Bivariate analysis was used to examine the relationship between the use of each cognitive aid and previous training with the aid, requirements for use, and perceived usefulness. \nResults: A total of 2,251 respondents met inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The length-based tape was the most common aid used during initial education programs (n=1724, 77.0%) and to have policy requiring its use during patient care (n=1194, 53.0%). Aids associated with pediatric medication administration were perceived as most useful. Clinicians were more likely to use a specific aid if there was policy requiring its use, if they used the aid during their initial education programs, or if they perceived it to be useful.  \nConclusions: The results of this study suggest that integrating a cognitive aid into EMS initial education programs, having policy requiring its use, and the aid being perceived as useful are all associated with increased use the aid during patient care. These results may provide valuable insights for devising more effective implementation strategies for cognitive aids.","PeriodicalId":73465,"journal":{"name":"International journal of paramedicine","volume":" 882","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of paramedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56068/vgmr5544","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

Background: Cognitive aids are an essential aspect of patient care within emergency medical services (EMS). Despite their availability in EMS, these aids are underutilized. Understanding factors associated with increased use of cognitive aids can help guide the development of effective implementation strategies. This study examines the association between the frequency of cognitive aid use in EMS and three factors: the use of these aids into initial education programs, policies mandating their use, and clinicians’ perceptions of cognitive aid usefulness. Methods: This study used a cross-sectional survey examining the use, previous training, policy, and perceived usefulness of 15 selected cognitive aids. The survey was emailed to 136,093 EMS clinicians in six participating states (TX, ME, MI, LA, SC, and AR). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the examined factors. Bivariate analysis was used to examine the relationship between the use of each cognitive aid and previous training with the aid, requirements for use, and perceived usefulness. Results: A total of 2,251 respondents met inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The length-based tape was the most common aid used during initial education programs (n=1724, 77.0%) and to have policy requiring its use during patient care (n=1194, 53.0%). Aids associated with pediatric medication administration were perceived as most useful. Clinicians were more likely to use a specific aid if there was policy requiring its use, if they used the aid during their initial education programs, or if they perceived it to be useful.  Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that integrating a cognitive aid into EMS initial education programs, having policy requiring its use, and the aid being perceived as useful are all associated with increased use the aid during patient care. These results may provide valuable insights for devising more effective implementation strategies for cognitive aids.
在紧急医疗服务中更多使用认知辅助工具的相关因素
背景:认知辅助工具是紧急医疗服务(EMS)中病人护理的一个重要方面。尽管在急救医疗服务中可以使用这些辅助工具,但其利用率却很低。了解增加认知辅助工具使用的相关因素有助于指导制定有效的实施策略。本研究探讨了急救医疗服务中认知辅助工具的使用频率与以下三个因素之间的关系:在初始教育计划中使用这些辅助工具、强制使用这些辅助工具的政策以及临床医生对认知辅助工具有用性的看法。方法:本研究采用横断面调查的方式,对 15 种选定认知辅助工具的使用、先前培训、政策和认知有用性进行了调查。调查通过电子邮件发送给六个参与州(德克萨斯州、密歇根州、密歇根州、洛杉矶州、南卡罗来纳州和阿肯色州)的 136093 名急救临床医生。描述性统计用于描述所研究的因素。使用双变量分析来研究每种认知辅助工具的使用与之前的辅助工具培训、使用要求和感知有用性之间的关系。结果:共有 2,251 名受访者符合纳入标准并被纳入研究。基于长度的磁带是在初始教育计划中最常用的辅助工具(人数=1724,占 77.0%),也是要求在患者护理过程中使用的政策中最常用的辅助工具(人数=1194,占 53.0%)。与儿科用药相关的辅助工具被认为是最有用的。如果有政策要求使用特定的辅助工具,如果他们在初始教育课程中使用过该辅助工具,或者如果他们认为该辅助工具有用,那么临床医生更有可能使用该辅助工具。 结论:本研究结果表明,将认知辅助工具纳入急救医疗初始教育计划、制定要求使用该辅助工具的政策以及认为该辅助工具有用,都与在患者护理过程中更多地使用该辅助工具有关。这些结果可为制定更有效的认知辅助工具实施策略提供有价值的见解。
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