Implementation of EMS Clinician Feedback Tool Encourages Patient Feedback Requests and Professional Development: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Abstract

Objectives: Emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians express dissatisfaction with the quality and quantity of clinical feedback received from hospitals, which is exacerbated by the absence of standardized feedback processes. A reported lack of regular feedback impedes their ability to learn and improve care. We evaluated a newly implemented feedback tool's utilization and perceived impact on EMS clinicians and our health system.

Methods: We employed a mixed-methods study design in a single academic medical center emergency department. Quantitative data collected focused on patients' clinical characteristics and characteristics of utilizers of the feedback tool during implementation (September 2023-July 2024). Qualitative data involved semi-structured interviews with EMS clinicians who had diverse experiences with the feedback tool and years of EMS service Semi-structured interviews applied a phenomenological framework, and were videorecorded, transcribed, and independently coded to identify key themes surrounding the utilization and impact of the implemented tool.

Results: Among the 381 feedback requests, 139 (36.5%) pertained to patients aged ≥65 years, while 44 (11.5 %) included patients <18 years; 343 (90%) had an Emergency Severity Index score of ≥2. Major complaints included traumatic (n = 165; 43.3%), neurologic (n = 90; 23.6%), and cardiac (n = 82; 21.5%). Emergency responder agencies included ground ambulance 227 (59.6%), air medical 90 (23.6%), public safety answering points 37 (9.7%), and fire service 27 (7.1%). The primary response method was e-mail 353 (93.7%). There was an average of 35 feedback requests per month (interquartile range: 27-59). EMS clinicians from multiple agencies with varying levels of knowledge of the feedback mechanism provided qualitative insights regarding the feedback tool, which covered several key areas: application and technological design, utilization, utility of feedback provided, barriers, comparisons to other systems, and areas for improvement.

Conclusions:  The standardized feedback mechanism implemented for EMS clinicians showed engagement, especially among ground responders caring for high-acuity patients, highlighting its importance in patient care. The preference for email emphasizes the need for efficient communication channels. Clinicians found the system accessible and user-friendly. The feedback tool was perceived as crucial for professional development and personal growth, allowing clinicians to gain closure on patient cases and potentially improve future patient care practices.