Emergency Medical Services Streaming Enabled Evaluation In Trauma: The SEE-IT Feasibility RCT.

Cath Taylor, Lucie Ollis, Richard Lyon, Julia Williams, Simon S Skene, Kate Bennett, Scott Munro, Craig Mortimer, Matthew Glover, Janet Holah, Jill Maben, Carin Magnusson, Rachael Cooke, Heather Gage, Mark Cropley
{"title":"Emergency Medical Services Streaming Enabled Evaluation In Trauma: The SEE-IT Feasibility RCT.","authors":"Cath Taylor, Lucie Ollis, Richard Lyon, Julia Williams, Simon S Skene, Kate Bennett, Scott Munro, Craig Mortimer, Matthew Glover, Janet Holah, Jill Maben, Carin Magnusson, Rachael Cooke, Heather Gage, Mark Cropley","doi":"10.3310/EUFS2314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of bystander video livestreaming from scene in emergency medical services is becoming increasingly common to inform decisions about the resources and support required. Possible benefits include clinical and financial gains, but evidence is sparse. We aimed to investigate the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial of its use in major trauma incidents.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To obtain data required to design a subsequent randomised controlled trial. To test trial processes. To embed a process evaluation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A feasibility randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations where working shifts (<i>n</i> = 62) in 6 trial weeks were randomised 1 : 1 to video livestreaming or standard care only; and two observational substudies: (1) assessment of acceptability in a diverse inner-city emergency medical service that routinely uses video livestreaming; and (2) assessment of staff well-being in an emergency medical service that does not use livestreaming (for comparison to the trial site). Qualitative data collection included observations (286 hours) and interviews with staff (<i>n</i> = 25) and bystander callers (<i>n</i> = 2).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>A pre-hospital emergency medical service in South-East England, with follow-up in associated major trauma centres and trauma units; substudies in (1) London and (2) East of England emergency medical services.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>(1) Patients involved in trauma incidents (<i>n</i> = 269); (2) bystander callers (<i>n</i> = 11); and (3) ambulance service staff (<i>n</i> = 67).</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Video livestreaming using GoodSAM's Instant-On-Scene.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Progression to a definitive randomised controlled trial based on four pre-defined criteria and consideration of qualitative data: (1) ≥ 70% bystanders with smartphones agreeing and able to activate livestreaming; (2) ≥ 50% requests to activate livestreaming resulting in footage being viewed; (3) helicopter emergency medical services stand-down rate reducing by ≥ 10% due to livestreaming; and (4) no evidence of psychological harm to bystanders or staff caused by livestreaming.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-two shifts were randomised, contributing 240 eligible incidents (132 control; 108 intervention). In a further three shifts, we randomised by individual call, which contributed four eligible incidents (two control; two intervention), thereby totalling 244 incidents involving 269 patients. Video livestreaming was successful in 53 incidents in the intervention arm. Patient recruitment (to access medical records to assess appropriateness of dispatch) and bystander recruitment (to measure potential harm) were both low (58/269, 22% of patients, 4/244, 2% of bystanders). Two progression criteria were met: (1) 86% of bystanders with smartphones agreed and were able to activate livestreaming; (2) 85% of requests to activate livestreaming resulted in viewed footage; and two were indeterminate due to insufficient data: (3) 2/6 (33%) stand-down due to livestreaming; and (4) no evidence of psychological harm from survey, observations or interviews. In substudy (i), dispatch staff reported that non/limited English language and older age may present barriers to video livestreaming.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Poor recruitment of patients and bystanders limited assessment of appropriateness of dispatch decisions and potential psychological harm.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Video livestreaming is feasible to implement, acceptable to both bystanders and dispatchers, and may aid dispatch decision-making, but further assessment of benefits and harm is required.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Findings support the design and conduct of a future multicentre study taking account of different triage systems and dispatch personnel, potentially using an alternative to a randomised controlled trial due to rapid uptake of video livestreaming in this setting.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number NIHR130811.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":" ","pages":"1-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/EUFS2314","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: The use of bystander video livestreaming from scene in emergency medical services is becoming increasingly common to inform decisions about the resources and support required. Possible benefits include clinical and financial gains, but evidence is sparse. We aimed to investigate the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial of its use in major trauma incidents.

Objectives: To obtain data required to design a subsequent randomised controlled trial. To test trial processes. To embed a process evaluation.

Design: A feasibility randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations where working shifts (n = 62) in 6 trial weeks were randomised 1 : 1 to video livestreaming or standard care only; and two observational substudies: (1) assessment of acceptability in a diverse inner-city emergency medical service that routinely uses video livestreaming; and (2) assessment of staff well-being in an emergency medical service that does not use livestreaming (for comparison to the trial site). Qualitative data collection included observations (286 hours) and interviews with staff (n = 25) and bystander callers (n = 2).

Setting: A pre-hospital emergency medical service in South-East England, with follow-up in associated major trauma centres and trauma units; substudies in (1) London and (2) East of England emergency medical services.

Participants: (1) Patients involved in trauma incidents (n = 269); (2) bystander callers (n = 11); and (3) ambulance service staff (n = 67).

Intervention: Video livestreaming using GoodSAM's Instant-On-Scene.

Main outcome measures: Progression to a definitive randomised controlled trial based on four pre-defined criteria and consideration of qualitative data: (1) ≥ 70% bystanders with smartphones agreeing and able to activate livestreaming; (2) ≥ 50% requests to activate livestreaming resulting in footage being viewed; (3) helicopter emergency medical services stand-down rate reducing by ≥ 10% due to livestreaming; and (4) no evidence of psychological harm to bystanders or staff caused by livestreaming.

Results: Sixty-two shifts were randomised, contributing 240 eligible incidents (132 control; 108 intervention). In a further three shifts, we randomised by individual call, which contributed four eligible incidents (two control; two intervention), thereby totalling 244 incidents involving 269 patients. Video livestreaming was successful in 53 incidents in the intervention arm. Patient recruitment (to access medical records to assess appropriateness of dispatch) and bystander recruitment (to measure potential harm) were both low (58/269, 22% of patients, 4/244, 2% of bystanders). Two progression criteria were met: (1) 86% of bystanders with smartphones agreed and were able to activate livestreaming; (2) 85% of requests to activate livestreaming resulted in viewed footage; and two were indeterminate due to insufficient data: (3) 2/6 (33%) stand-down due to livestreaming; and (4) no evidence of psychological harm from survey, observations or interviews. In substudy (i), dispatch staff reported that non/limited English language and older age may present barriers to video livestreaming.

Limitations: Poor recruitment of patients and bystanders limited assessment of appropriateness of dispatch decisions and potential psychological harm.

Conclusions: Video livestreaming is feasible to implement, acceptable to both bystanders and dispatchers, and may aid dispatch decision-making, but further assessment of benefits and harm is required.

Future work: Findings support the design and conduct of a future multicentre study taking account of different triage systems and dispatch personnel, potentially using an alternative to a randomised controlled trial due to rapid uptake of video livestreaming in this setting.

Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number NIHR130811.

急诊医疗服务流在创伤中的评估:SEE-IT的可行性随机对照试验。
背景:在紧急医疗服务现场使用旁观者视频直播越来越普遍,以告知所需资源和支持的决策。可能的好处包括临床和经济收益,但证据很少。我们的目的是调查在重大创伤事件中进行明确的随机对照试验的可行性。目的:获得设计后续随机对照试验所需的数据。测试试验过程。嵌入一个过程评估。设计:可行性随机对照试验,嵌入流程和经济评估,在6周的试验中,工作班次(n = 62)被随机分配到视频直播或标准护理中;以及两个观察性子研究:(1)评估在一个经常使用视频直播的城市紧急医疗服务中的可接受性;(2)不使用直播的紧急医疗服务人员幸福感评估(与试验现场比较)。定性数据收集包括观察(286小时)和与工作人员(n = 25)和旁观者来电者(n = 2)的访谈。环境:在英格兰东南部提供院前紧急医疗服务,并在相关的主要创伤中心和创伤科开展后续工作;(1)伦敦和(2)英格兰东部紧急医疗服务的子研究。参与者:(1)涉及创伤事件的患者(n = 269);(2)旁观者呼叫者(n = 11);(3)救护车服务人员(n = 67)。干预:视频直播使用GoodSAM的即时现场。主要结局指标:根据四个预先定义的标准并考虑定性数据,进展到确定的随机对照试验:(1)≥70%拥有智能手机的旁观者同意并能够激活直播;(2)至少50%的请求激活直播,导致视频被观看;(3)直升机应急医疗服务因直播而停机率降低10%以上;(4)没有证据表明直播对旁观者或工作人员造成心理伤害。结果:62个班次随机分配,240例符合条件的事件(对照组132例;108干预)。在接下来的三个班次中,我们按个人电话随机分组,其中有四个符合条件的事件(两个控制;两次干预),总共发生244起事件,涉及269名患者。在干预部门的53起事件中,视频直播取得了成功。患者招募(获取医疗记录以评估调度的适当性)和旁观者招募(衡量潜在危害)都很低(58/269,22%的患者,4/244,2%的旁观者)。满足两个进展标准:(1)86%拥有智能手机的旁观者同意并能够激活直播;(2) 85%激活直播的请求导致观看视频;2个因数据不充分而不确定:(3)2/6(33%)因直播而停机;(4)从调查、观察或访谈中没有发现心理伤害的证据。在子研究(i)中,调度员报告说,不懂英语/英语有限和年龄较大可能对视频直播构成障碍。局限性:患者和旁观者的招募不足,限制了对派遣决定的适当性和潜在心理伤害的评估。结论:视频直播的实施是可行的,旁观者和调度员都可以接受,可以帮助调度决策,但需要进一步评估利弊。未来的工作:研究结果支持未来多中心研究的设计和实施,考虑到不同的分诊系统和调度人员,由于在这种情况下视频直播的迅速普及,可能会使用随机对照试验的替代方案。资助:本摘要介绍了由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究计划资助的独立研究,奖励号为NIHR130811。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信