Evaluation of an Acuity Matrix Tool for Critical Care Transport

Q3 Nursing
Air Medical Journal Pub Date : 2026-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-26 DOI:10.1016/j.amj.2025.10.009
Darren Braude MD, MPH, EMT-P , Margaret O’Donnell RN, BSN, MBA , Ryan Huebinger MD
{"title":"Evaluation of an Acuity Matrix Tool for Critical Care Transport","authors":"Darren Braude MD, MPH, EMT-P ,&nbsp;Margaret O’Donnell RN, BSN, MBA ,&nbsp;Ryan Huebinger MD","doi":"10.1016/j.amj.2025.10.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Determining patient acuity before interfacility transport allows for better use of assets and personnel if it can be done accurately and reliably. We developed an acuity matrix to be used at the time of dispatch and sought to validate it against actual findings upon patient contact and compare dispatcher and flight crew determinations.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Lifeguard is a public, not-for-profit, university-owned, fixed-wing, rotor-wing, and ground transport agency. Lifeguard has its own communications center staffed by paramedics. At the time of call intake, before crew notification, our dispatchers recorded their determination of acuity. After dispatch, but before departure, the flight crew recorded their determination of acuity. After completion of the transport, the flight crew recorded the final determination of acuity. Results were compared using Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC) with quadratic weighting.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The matrix was implemented in April 2023. Between April 2023 and September 2023, there were 825 total dispatches and 674 with complete data. Dispatchers had excellent agreement (89.1%) with the medical crew on initial tier assignment (Gwet’s AC, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94–0.97) with 5.7% overtriage and 5.2% undertriage. Dispatchers also had excellent agreement (85.9%) with final acuity (Gwet’s AC, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93–0.96); they overtriaged 6.7% and undertriaged 7.4%. Medical crew had excellent agreement (92.9%) with final acuity (Gwet’s AC, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96–0.98); they overtriaged 4.3% and undertriaged 2.9%.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Flight crew and paramedic dispatchers can accurately and consistently determine patient acuity based only on dispatch information with outstanding agreement. This tool may have a role in triaging multiple transport requests, assigning the appropriate asset and personnel, determining when it is reasonable to expect crew to stay over time, and conducting utilization review.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35737,"journal":{"name":"Air Medical Journal","volume":"45 3","pages":"Pages 180-184"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Air Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1067991X25003335","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Determining patient acuity before interfacility transport allows for better use of assets and personnel if it can be done accurately and reliably. We developed an acuity matrix to be used at the time of dispatch and sought to validate it against actual findings upon patient contact and compare dispatcher and flight crew determinations.

Methods

Lifeguard is a public, not-for-profit, university-owned, fixed-wing, rotor-wing, and ground transport agency. Lifeguard has its own communications center staffed by paramedics. At the time of call intake, before crew notification, our dispatchers recorded their determination of acuity. After dispatch, but before departure, the flight crew recorded their determination of acuity. After completion of the transport, the flight crew recorded the final determination of acuity. Results were compared using Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC) with quadratic weighting.

Results

The matrix was implemented in April 2023. Between April 2023 and September 2023, there were 825 total dispatches and 674 with complete data. Dispatchers had excellent agreement (89.1%) with the medical crew on initial tier assignment (Gwet’s AC, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94–0.97) with 5.7% overtriage and 5.2% undertriage. Dispatchers also had excellent agreement (85.9%) with final acuity (Gwet’s AC, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93–0.96); they overtriaged 6.7% and undertriaged 7.4%. Medical crew had excellent agreement (92.9%) with final acuity (Gwet’s AC, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96–0.98); they overtriaged 4.3% and undertriaged 2.9%.

Conclusion

Flight crew and paramedic dispatchers can accurately and consistently determine patient acuity based only on dispatch information with outstanding agreement. This tool may have a role in triaging multiple transport requests, assigning the appropriate asset and personnel, determining when it is reasonable to expect crew to stay over time, and conducting utilization review.
危重监护运输的锐度矩阵工具评估
目的在跨医院转运前确定患者的视力,如果能够准确可靠地完成,可以更好地利用资产和人员。我们开发了一个在调度时使用的敏锐度矩阵,并试图根据患者接触的实际结果验证它,并比较调度员和机组人员的决定。slifeguard是一家公立、非营利性、大学所有、固定翼、旋翼和地面运输机构。救生员有自己的通讯中心,由医护人员组成。在接到呼叫时,在通知机组人员之前,我们的调度员记录了他们对视力的测定。在派遣之后,但在起飞之前,机组人员记录了他们的视力测定。运输完成后,机组人员记录了最后的视力测定结果。采用二次加权的Gwet一致系数(AC)对结果进行比较。结果该矩阵于2023年4月实施。在2023年4月至2023年9月期间,共有825次调度,674次数据完整。调度员与医务人员在初始分级分配上有非常好的一致性(89.1%)(Gwet的AC, 0.96; 95%可信区间[CI], 0.94-0.97),有5.7%的分诊过多和5.2%的分诊不足。调度员对最终锐度也有极佳的一致性(85.9%)(Gwet’s AC, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.96);他们过度分类了6.7%,不足分类了7.4%。医务人员与最终锐度的一致性极佳(92.9%)(Gwet’s AC, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98);他们高估了4.3%,低估了2.9%。结论机组人员和护理调度员仅根据调度员提供的信息就能准确、一致地确定患者的视敏度,且一致性较好。该工具可以对多个运输请求进行分类,分配适当的资产和人员,确定何时可以合理地期望机组人员停留,并进行利用率审查。
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
Air Medical Journal
Air Medical Journal Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
112
审稿时长
69 days
期刊介绍: Air Medical Journal is the official journal of the five leading air medical transport associations in the United States. AMJ is the premier provider of information for the medical transport industry, addressing the unique concerns of medical transport physicians, nurses, pilots, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, communication specialists, and program administrators. The journal contains practical how-to articles, debates on controversial industry issues, legislative updates, case studies, and peer-reviewed original research articles covering all aspects of the medical transport profession.
×
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