Providing Performance Feedback and Patient Outcome Follow-Up to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is Associated with Subsequent Improved Clinical Performance.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Sarayna S McGuire, Aaron Klassen, Anuradha Luke, Lisa Rentz, Chad P Liedl, Aidan F Mullan, Matthew D Sztajnkrycer
{"title":"Providing Performance Feedback and Patient Outcome Follow-Up to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is Associated with Subsequent Improved Clinical Performance.","authors":"Sarayna S McGuire, Aaron Klassen, Anuradha Luke, Lisa Rentz, Chad P Liedl, Aidan F Mullan, Matthew D Sztajnkrycer","doi":"10.1080/10903127.2024.2383323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Emergency Medical Services (EMS) clinicians desire performance feedback (PF) and patient outcome follow-up (POF). Within our agency, both a peer-review and feedback/outcome (PF/POF) process exist. Our objective was to determine whether receiving feedback and outcome data improved future clinical care amongst EMS, based upon peer-review scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study took place between 1/1/2020 and 6/7/2023 within an EMS agency site with 22,000 average annual 9-1-1 calls. Requests for PF/POF were submitted on an individual basis beginning June 2020 and completed by a dedicated EMS nurse, EMS physician, or emergency medicine (EM) resident. Peer-review of select high-acuity cases were scored by two Quality Assurance (QA) specialists within the categories of assessment, treatment, disposition/outcome and process/administrative guidelines. Association between overall peer-review score and number of PF/POF requests at time of assessment was evaluated by linear regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 378 PF/POF requests were received, with the most common patient complaints being cardiac (<i>n</i> = 105; 27.8%, including 49 (13.0%) out of hospital cardiac arrests), altered mental status/neurologic (<i>n</i> = 103; 27.2%), trauma (<i>n</i> = 61; 16.1%, including 2 (0.5%) traumatic arrests); and respiratory distress (<i>n</i> = 47; 12.4%). A total of 378 runs meeting QA criteria were peer-reviewed post-PF/POF process implementation, including 337 (89.2%) cardiac/respiratory arrests, 27 (7.1%) with difficult airway management, and 14 (3.7%) major trauma/traumatic arrests. The number of prior PF/POF requests made by the team leader was associated with higher overall peer-review scores. Team leaders with <u>></u>5 prior PF/POF requests had a peer-review score 0.39 points greater (95% CI: 0.16 - 0.62, <i>p</i> = 0.001) than those with <5 prior requests. The number of prior PF/POF requests amongst the entire crew was also associated with higher peer-review scores. Crews that collectively had <u>></u>5 prior PF/POF requests had an increase in peer-review score 0.32 points greater (95% CI: 0.14 - 0.50, <i>p</i> < 0.001) than those with <5 prior requests.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Providing performance feedback and patient outcome follow-up to EMS is associated with improved peer-review scores of clinical performance. Future studies should assess if those that are submitting cases for feedback/outcome are higher performers at baseline or if the process of receiving feedback/outcome improves their performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":20336,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital Emergency Care","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prehospital Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2024.2383323","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) clinicians desire performance feedback (PF) and patient outcome follow-up (POF). Within our agency, both a peer-review and feedback/outcome (PF/POF) process exist. Our objective was to determine whether receiving feedback and outcome data improved future clinical care amongst EMS, based upon peer-review scores.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study took place between 1/1/2020 and 6/7/2023 within an EMS agency site with 22,000 average annual 9-1-1 calls. Requests for PF/POF were submitted on an individual basis beginning June 2020 and completed by a dedicated EMS nurse, EMS physician, or emergency medicine (EM) resident. Peer-review of select high-acuity cases were scored by two Quality Assurance (QA) specialists within the categories of assessment, treatment, disposition/outcome and process/administrative guidelines. Association between overall peer-review score and number of PF/POF requests at time of assessment was evaluated by linear regression.

Results: A total of 378 PF/POF requests were received, with the most common patient complaints being cardiac (n = 105; 27.8%, including 49 (13.0%) out of hospital cardiac arrests), altered mental status/neurologic (n = 103; 27.2%), trauma (n = 61; 16.1%, including 2 (0.5%) traumatic arrests); and respiratory distress (n = 47; 12.4%). A total of 378 runs meeting QA criteria were peer-reviewed post-PF/POF process implementation, including 337 (89.2%) cardiac/respiratory arrests, 27 (7.1%) with difficult airway management, and 14 (3.7%) major trauma/traumatic arrests. The number of prior PF/POF requests made by the team leader was associated with higher overall peer-review scores. Team leaders with >5 prior PF/POF requests had a peer-review score 0.39 points greater (95% CI: 0.16 - 0.62, p = 0.001) than those with <5 prior requests. The number of prior PF/POF requests amongst the entire crew was also associated with higher peer-review scores. Crews that collectively had >5 prior PF/POF requests had an increase in peer-review score 0.32 points greater (95% CI: 0.14 - 0.50, p < 0.001) than those with <5 prior requests.

Conclusion: Providing performance feedback and patient outcome follow-up to EMS is associated with improved peer-review scores of clinical performance. Future studies should assess if those that are submitting cases for feedback/outcome are higher performers at baseline or if the process of receiving feedback/outcome improves their performance.

向紧急医疗服务 (EMS) 提供绩效反馈和患者结果跟踪与后续临床绩效的改善有关。
目的:紧急医疗服务(EMS)临床医生希望获得绩效反馈(PF)和患者结果跟踪(POF)。在我们机构内部,同时存在同行评审和反馈/结果(PF/POF)流程。我们的目标是根据同行评议得分,确定接受反馈和结果数据是否能改善急救医疗服务中未来的临床护理:这项回顾性队列研究是在 2020 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 7 月 6 日期间,在一个年均接到 22,000 次 9-1-1 电话的急救中心进行的。自 2020 年 6 月起,PF/POF 申请以个人为单位提交,由专职急救护士、急救医生或急诊医学(EM)住院医师完成。两名质量保证 (QA) 专家根据评估、治疗、处置/结果和流程/行政指南等类别对选定的高危病例进行同行评审打分。通过线性回归评估了同行评审总分与评估时 PF/POF 申请数量之间的关系:共收到 378 份 PF/POF 申请,最常见的患者主诉为心脏疾病(n= 105;27.8%,包括 49 例(13.0%)院外心脏骤停)、精神状态改变/神经系统疾病(n= 103;27.2%)、创伤(n= 61;16.1%,包括 2 例(0.5%)创伤性骤停)和呼吸困难(n= 47;12.4%)。PF/POF 流程实施后,共有 378 次符合 QA 标准的运行接受了同行评审,其中包括 337 次(89.2%)心脏/呼吸骤停、27 次(7.1%)困难气道管理和 14 次(3.7%)重大创伤/外伤性骤停。组长之前提出 PF/POF 请求的次数与较高的同行评审总分有关。之前提出过 5 次 PF/POF 请求的组长的同行评审得分比提出过 5 次 PF/POF 请求的组长高出 0.39 分(95% CI:0.16 - 0.62,p= 0.001),而提出过 5 次 PF/POF 请求的组长的同行评审得分比提出过 5 次 PF/POF 请求的组长高出 0.32 分(95% CI:0.14 - 0.50,p < 0.001):为急救医疗服务提供绩效反馈和患者结果跟踪与临床绩效同行评审分数的提高有关。未来的研究应评估那些提交反馈/结果的病例是否在基线时表现较好,或者接受反馈/结果的过程是否提高了他们的表现。
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
Prehospital Emergency Care
Prehospital Emergency Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
137
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Prehospital Emergency Care publishes peer-reviewed information relevant to the practice, educational advancement, and investigation of prehospital emergency care, including the following types of articles: Special Contributions - Original Articles - Education and Practice - Preliminary Reports - Case Conferences - Position Papers - Collective Reviews - Editorials - Letters to the Editor - Media Reviews.
×
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