Missed opportunities of feedback for emergency ambulance staff: a mixed-methods diary study.

Caitlin Wilson, Luke Budworth, Gillian Janes, Rebecca Lawton, Jonathan Benn
{"title":"Missed opportunities of feedback for emergency ambulance staff: a mixed-methods diary study.","authors":"Caitlin Wilson, Luke Budworth, Gillian Janes, Rebecca Lawton, Jonathan Benn","doi":"10.29045/14784726.2025.6.10.1.27","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Providing feedback to emergency ambulance staff on performance or patient outcomes may improve care quality and professional development. Current feedback provision in ambulance services is limited and staff desire more feedback; however, we do not know what feedback would be most useful. This study aimed to determine the quality of feedback received by emergency ambulance staff, describe self-directed learning activities performed after receiving feedback (e.g. 'reflected on what exactly I did right/wrong') and identify situations where ambulance staff desired enhanced feedback.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An observational mixed-methods study was used. Emergency ambulance staff delivering face-to-face patient care in the United Kingdom's National Health Service completed a baseline survey and diary entries between March and August 2022. Diary entries were event contingent and were collected when a participant identified that they had received feedback or desired feedback but had not received it. Free-text qualitative responses were categorised using content analysis before being included in the quantitative analyses. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline surveys were completed by 299 participants; 100 participants submitted 374 feedback-desired diary entries and 105 participants submitted 538 feedback-received diary entries. Ambulance staff expressed a statistically significant preference for patient-outcome feedback (77.8% [95% CI 74.0, 82.1]), provided by non-ambulance healthcare professionals (70.7% [66.2, 75.3]) and delivered electronically (54.0% [48.9, 59.4]). Feedback was particularly desired for cases involving neurological (17.1%) and cardiovascular (16.6%) conditions and non-conveyed patients (11.5%). Self-directed learning activities post feedback included reflection (61.5%), considering alignment with own judgement (41.1%) and discussions with colleagues (37.0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study identifies critical gaps in current feedback practices within ambulance services and provides directions for feedback designs that would enhance existing systems and approaches. Training programmes should educate ambulance staff on effective feedback utilisation and management of both positive and negative feedback. Cultivating a supportive feedback culture within ambulance services is crucial for fostering continuous professional growth and improving patient care outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":72470,"journal":{"name":"British paramedic journal","volume":"10 1","pages":"27-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12543068/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British paramedic journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29045/14784726.2025.6.10.1.27","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

Introduction: Providing feedback to emergency ambulance staff on performance or patient outcomes may improve care quality and professional development. Current feedback provision in ambulance services is limited and staff desire more feedback; however, we do not know what feedback would be most useful. This study aimed to determine the quality of feedback received by emergency ambulance staff, describe self-directed learning activities performed after receiving feedback (e.g. 'reflected on what exactly I did right/wrong') and identify situations where ambulance staff desired enhanced feedback.

Methods: An observational mixed-methods study was used. Emergency ambulance staff delivering face-to-face patient care in the United Kingdom's National Health Service completed a baseline survey and diary entries between March and August 2022. Diary entries were event contingent and were collected when a participant identified that they had received feedback or desired feedback but had not received it. Free-text qualitative responses were categorised using content analysis before being included in the quantitative analyses. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Results: Baseline surveys were completed by 299 participants; 100 participants submitted 374 feedback-desired diary entries and 105 participants submitted 538 feedback-received diary entries. Ambulance staff expressed a statistically significant preference for patient-outcome feedback (77.8% [95% CI 74.0, 82.1]), provided by non-ambulance healthcare professionals (70.7% [66.2, 75.3]) and delivered electronically (54.0% [48.9, 59.4]). Feedback was particularly desired for cases involving neurological (17.1%) and cardiovascular (16.6%) conditions and non-conveyed patients (11.5%). Self-directed learning activities post feedback included reflection (61.5%), considering alignment with own judgement (41.1%) and discussions with colleagues (37.0%).

Conclusion: The study identifies critical gaps in current feedback practices within ambulance services and provides directions for feedback designs that would enhance existing systems and approaches. Training programmes should educate ambulance staff on effective feedback utilisation and management of both positive and negative feedback. Cultivating a supportive feedback culture within ambulance services is crucial for fostering continuous professional growth and improving patient care outcomes.

急救人员错失反馈机会:一项混合方法日记研究。
简介:对急救人员的表现或病人的结果提供反馈可以提高护理质量和专业发展。目前救护车服务提供的反馈有限,员工希望得到更多的反馈;然而,我们不知道什么样的反馈是最有用的。本研究旨在确定急诊救护人员收到的反馈的质量,描述收到反馈后进行的自主学习活动(例如:“反思我到底做对了什么,做错了什么”),并确定救护人员需要加强反馈的情况。方法:采用观察性混合方法研究。在2022年3月至8月期间,英国国家卫生服务机构提供面对面病人护理的急救人员完成了一项基线调查和日记记录。日记条目是随事件而定的,当参与者确定他们收到了反馈或期望得到反馈但没有收到时,就会收集日记条目。在纳入定量分析之前,使用内容分析对自由文本定性反应进行分类。定量数据采用描述统计和推理统计进行分析。结果:299名参与者完成了基线调查;100名参与者提交了374篇反馈要求的日记,105名参与者提交了538篇反馈收到的日记。救护车工作人员对由非救护车医护人员提供(70.7%[66.2,75.3])和以电子方式传递(54.0%[48.9,59.4])的患者结果反馈(77.8% [95% CI 74.0, 82.1])表达了统计上显著的偏好。神经系统疾病(17.1%)、心血管疾病(16.6%)和非移情患者(11.5%)尤其需要反馈。自主学习活动后反馈包括反思(61.5%)、考虑与自己的判断一致(41.1%)和与同事讨论(37.0%)。结论:该研究确定了救护车服务中当前反馈实践的关键差距,并为反馈设计提供了方向,这些设计将增强现有的系统和方法。培训计划应该教育救护人员如何有效地利用和管理积极和消极的反馈。在救护车服务中培养支持性反馈文化对于促进持续的专业发展和改善患者护理结果至关重要。
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
小红书