Current Emergency Medical Services Systems Approaches to Refusal of Assessment, Treatment, or Transport: Examination of Statewide Protocols.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Rana Barghout, Joshua Lachs, William Haussner, David Hancock, Alyssa Elman, Emily Benton, Douglas Kupas, Ronald Strony, Dennis Rowe, Cory Henkel, Bess White, Phylise Banner, Mark Lachs, Tony Rosen
{"title":"Current Emergency Medical Services Systems Approaches to Refusal of Assessment, Treatment, or Transport: Examination of Statewide Protocols.","authors":"Rana Barghout, Joshua Lachs, William Haussner, David Hancock, Alyssa Elman, Emily Benton, Douglas Kupas, Ronald Strony, Dennis Rowe, Cory Henkel, Bess White, Phylise Banner, Mark Lachs, Tony Rosen","doi":"10.1080/10903127.2025.2537861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Many emergency medical services (EMS) 9-1-1 activations result in patients declining evaluation, treatment, or transport to the emergency department (ED). Assessment of a patient's decision-making capacity to refuse and taking appropriate actions based on that are critical elements of EMS practice. However, EMS clinician approaches in this area are under-studied, and variation may exist. As EMS practice is highly protocolized, our goal was to examine all publicly available United States (U.S.) state protocols and describe their guidance around refusals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a structured, multi-step content analysis and published expert recommendations on managing refusal of care in health care settings to identify 35 specific elements within five domains of prehospital refusal management: decision-making capacity assessment, risk assessment, persuasion, escalation to medical oversight, and documentation. We systematically and comprehensively reviewed 34 state protocols and a U.S. national protocol for the presence of these elements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 34 state protocols examined, 24% (8) had no guidance on refusal, with 18% (6) including at least some guidance in all domains. Among states with any guidance on refusal, we found a median of 15, a mean of 15, and a range of 5-25 elements included. Three states (9%) discussed all four components of decision-making capacity. Seven (21%) emphasized assessing risk of a severe medical emergency when considering refusal. Guidance on persuasion for high-risk patients was included in 13 (38%). Escalation to direct medical oversight was present in 20 (59%). Only 21 (62%) of protocols provided specific documentation guidelines. Notably, guidance was identified in state protocols that is inconsistent with expert recommendations for management of refusal in the ED. Checklists were included in 4 (12%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Substantial variability exists among state protocols regarding patient refusal guidance. Few protocols address high-risk patients, provide strategies for persuasion, or include checklists for proper management. Standardizing and expanding protocols may enhance EMS care.</p>","PeriodicalId":20336,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital Emergency Care","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","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/10.1080/10903127.2025.2537861","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

Objectives: Many emergency medical services (EMS) 9-1-1 activations result in patients declining evaluation, treatment, or transport to the emergency department (ED). Assessment of a patient's decision-making capacity to refuse and taking appropriate actions based on that are critical elements of EMS practice. However, EMS clinician approaches in this area are under-studied, and variation may exist. As EMS practice is highly protocolized, our goal was to examine all publicly available United States (U.S.) state protocols and describe their guidance around refusals.

Methods: We used a structured, multi-step content analysis and published expert recommendations on managing refusal of care in health care settings to identify 35 specific elements within five domains of prehospital refusal management: decision-making capacity assessment, risk assessment, persuasion, escalation to medical oversight, and documentation. We systematically and comprehensively reviewed 34 state protocols and a U.S. national protocol for the presence of these elements.

Results: Among 34 state protocols examined, 24% (8) had no guidance on refusal, with 18% (6) including at least some guidance in all domains. Among states with any guidance on refusal, we found a median of 15, a mean of 15, and a range of 5-25 elements included. Three states (9%) discussed all four components of decision-making capacity. Seven (21%) emphasized assessing risk of a severe medical emergency when considering refusal. Guidance on persuasion for high-risk patients was included in 13 (38%). Escalation to direct medical oversight was present in 20 (59%). Only 21 (62%) of protocols provided specific documentation guidelines. Notably, guidance was identified in state protocols that is inconsistent with expert recommendations for management of refusal in the ED. Checklists were included in 4 (12%).

Conclusions: Substantial variability exists among state protocols regarding patient refusal guidance. Few protocols address high-risk patients, provide strategies for persuasion, or include checklists for proper management. Standardizing and expanding protocols may enhance EMS care.

当前紧急医疗服务系统的方法拒绝评估,治疗,或运输:检查全国协议。
目的:许多紧急医疗服务(EMS) 9-1-1激活导致患者拒绝评估,治疗或转移到急诊科(ED)。评估病人拒绝的决策能力,并在此基础上采取适当的行动是EMS实践的关键要素。然而,EMS临床医生在这一领域的方法研究不足,可能存在差异。由于EMS实践是高度协议化的,我们的目标是检查所有公开可用的美国(U.S.)州协议,并描述它们对拒绝的指导。方法:我们采用结构化的、多步骤的内容分析和发表的关于医疗机构拒绝护理管理的专家建议,以确定院前拒绝管理的五个领域中的35个具体要素:决策能力评估、风险评估、说服、升级到医疗监督和文件。我们系统和全面地审查了34个州的协议和美国的国家协议,以了解这些元素的存在。结果:在所审查的34个州协议中,24%(8个)没有拒绝指导,18%(6个)在所有领域至少包括一些指导。在有任何拒绝指导的州中,我们发现中位数为15,平均值为15,范围为5-25个元素。三个州(9%)讨论了决策能力的所有四个组成部分。7个(21%)强调在考虑拒绝时评估严重医疗紧急情况的风险。13例(38%)纳入高危患者劝导指导。有20例(59%)升级为直接医疗监督。只有21个(62%)方案提供了具体的文档指南。值得注意的是,在州协议中确定的指导意见与急诊室拒绝管理的专家建议不一致。清单包括在4(12%)中。结论:各州关于患者拒绝指导的协议存在很大差异。很少有方案针对高危患者,提供说服策略,或包括适当管理的清单。标准化和扩展协议可以提高紧急医疗服务。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信