Ambulance diversion and its use as an ED overcrowding mitigation strategy: Does it work? A scoping review.

IF 2 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Jin Han Malcolm Ong, Bernard J W Lim, Muhammad Ariffin B M Zahrin, Isaac J S Yong, Luke L L Tan, Ren Hao Desmond Mao, Marcus E H Ong, Fahad Javaid Siddiqui
{"title":"Ambulance diversion and its use as an ED overcrowding mitigation strategy: Does it work? A scoping review.","authors":"Jin Han Malcolm Ong, Bernard J W Lim, Muhammad Ariffin B M Zahrin, Isaac J S Yong, Luke L L Tan, Ren Hao Desmond Mao, Marcus E H Ong, Fahad Javaid Siddiqui","doi":"10.1186/s12245-025-00933-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Emergency department (ED) overcrowding is a worldwide issue with significant negative consequences, including increased patient mortality. Ambulance diversion (AD) is sometimes used as an intervention to momentarily relieve overcrowded EDs, however, jury is still out about the negative consequences both for emergency medical services (EMS) who are required to divert to an alternative destination, and for patients whose care is delayed. Additionally, there is no operational guidance to best operationalize AD. The objective of this scoping review was to collate and organize the peer-reviewed published literature on the effects of both diversion and diversion aversion measures, on emergency medical services (EMS) and patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A systematic, comprehensive search was conducted in various databases to identify relevant studies. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Psychinfo, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched. Online ACEP and NAEMSP portals were also searched. Included studies discussed AD in the setting of ED overcrowding that reported either EMS or patient outcomes. The effects of interventions implemented to reduce AD were also reported. Two independent reviewers screened the articles and consensus was reached when disagreements arose.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 10,061 identified records, 95 papers meeting the inclusion criteria contributed to the results. 51 were observational, 16 simulation, 15 interventional, 10 descriptive, 2 systematic reviews and 1 mixed method. 12 articles reported negative EMS outcomes compared to only 2 neutral or positive EMS outcomes. 19 articles reported negative patient outcomes, whereas 9 reported neutral or positive outcomes. 34 articles reporting on intervention attempts to reduce diversion found overall positive results with diversion aversion. Only 7 articles studied the qualitative effects of diversion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no conclusive evidence on the effects of AD on EMS and patient outcomes. 31 articles reported negative EMS or patient outcomes with 11 articles reporting neutral or positive outcomes. Measures to reduce or avoid diversion, however, showed overall positive trend in the results when diversion was averted. More research to ascertain accurate effects with standardised criteria for outcomes is required. Qualitative outcomes were also not well reported and further research should be conducted to determine the psychological impact on both staff and patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":13967,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"18 1","pages":"125"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12239308/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12245-025-00933-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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 department (ED) overcrowding is a worldwide issue with significant negative consequences, including increased patient mortality. Ambulance diversion (AD) is sometimes used as an intervention to momentarily relieve overcrowded EDs, however, jury is still out about the negative consequences both for emergency medical services (EMS) who are required to divert to an alternative destination, and for patients whose care is delayed. Additionally, there is no operational guidance to best operationalize AD. The objective of this scoping review was to collate and organize the peer-reviewed published literature on the effects of both diversion and diversion aversion measures, on emergency medical services (EMS) and patient outcomes.

Method: A systematic, comprehensive search was conducted in various databases to identify relevant studies. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Psychinfo, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched. Online ACEP and NAEMSP portals were also searched. Included studies discussed AD in the setting of ED overcrowding that reported either EMS or patient outcomes. The effects of interventions implemented to reduce AD were also reported. Two independent reviewers screened the articles and consensus was reached when disagreements arose.

Results: Out of 10,061 identified records, 95 papers meeting the inclusion criteria contributed to the results. 51 were observational, 16 simulation, 15 interventional, 10 descriptive, 2 systematic reviews and 1 mixed method. 12 articles reported negative EMS outcomes compared to only 2 neutral or positive EMS outcomes. 19 articles reported negative patient outcomes, whereas 9 reported neutral or positive outcomes. 34 articles reporting on intervention attempts to reduce diversion found overall positive results with diversion aversion. Only 7 articles studied the qualitative effects of diversion.

Conclusion: There is no conclusive evidence on the effects of AD on EMS and patient outcomes. 31 articles reported negative EMS or patient outcomes with 11 articles reporting neutral or positive outcomes. Measures to reduce or avoid diversion, however, showed overall positive trend in the results when diversion was averted. More research to ascertain accurate effects with standardised criteria for outcomes is required. Qualitative outcomes were also not well reported and further research should be conducted to determine the psychological impact on both staff and patients.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

救护车分流及其作为急诊科过度拥挤缓解策略的使用:是否有效?范围审查。
目的:急诊科(ED)过度拥挤是一个全球性的问题,具有显著的负面影响,包括增加患者死亡率。救护车转移(AD)有时被用作暂时缓解过度拥挤的急诊室的干预措施,然而,对于需要转移到另一个目的地的紧急医疗服务(EMS)和延迟护理的患者的负面影响,陪审团仍然没有定论。此外,没有最佳地操作AD的操作指导。本综述的目的是整理和组织同行评议的关于分流和分流厌恶措施对急诊医疗服务(EMS)和患者预后影响的已发表文献。方法:系统、全面地检索各数据库,找出相关研究。检索了Medline、Embase、CINAHL、Psychinfo、Cochrane和ClinicalTrials.gov数据库。在线ACEP和NAEMSP门户网站也进行了搜索。纳入的研究讨论了在急诊科过度拥挤的情况下的AD,报告了EMS或患者的结果。还报道了为减少阿尔茨海默病而实施的干预措施的效果。两名独立审稿人对文章进行了筛选,当出现分歧时达成了共识。结果:10061篇文献中,95篇符合纳入标准的文献对结果有贡献。观察法51例,模拟法16例,干预法15例,描述性10例,系统评价2例,混合评价1例。12篇文章报道了负面的EMS结果,而只有2篇文章报道了中性或正面的EMS结果。19篇文章报道了患者的阴性结果,而9篇报道了中性或阳性结果。34篇报道干预尝试减少转移的文章发现,转移厌恶总体上是积极的结果。只有7篇文章研究了分流的定性效果。结论:AD对EMS和患者预后的影响尚无确凿证据。31篇文章报道了负面的EMS或患者结果,11篇文章报道了中性或积极的结果。减少或避免导流的措施,在避免导流的情况下,结果总体呈积极趋势。需要进行更多的研究,以确定具有标准化结果标准的准确效果。定性结果也没有得到很好的报道,应该进行进一步的研究,以确定对工作人员和患者的心理影响。
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
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The aim of the journal is to bring to light the various clinical advancements and research developments attained over the world and thus help the specialty forge ahead. It is directed towards physicians and medical personnel undergoing training or working within the field of Emergency Medicine. Medical students who are interested in pursuing a career in Emergency Medicine will also benefit from the journal. This is particularly useful for trainees in countries where the specialty is still in its infancy. Disciplines covered will include interesting clinical cases, the latest evidence-based practice and research developments in Emergency medicine including emergency pediatrics.
×
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