Video Documentation as a Measure of Written Documentation Accuracy in Emergency Medical Service Field Intubations.

HCA healthcare journal of medicine Pub Date : 2023-08-29 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.36518/2689-0216.1183
Christopher S Keller, Christopher Dilger, Shih-Chin Chou, Rasheed Lawal, Shane Jenks
{"title":"Video Documentation as a Measure of Written Documentation Accuracy in Emergency Medical Service Field Intubations.","authors":"Christopher S Keller,&nbsp;Christopher Dilger,&nbsp;Shih-Chin Chou,&nbsp;Rasheed Lawal,&nbsp;Shane Jenks","doi":"10.36518/2689-0216.1183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Quality improvement (QI) is a major focus of all departments and fields of health care, including emergency medical services. The chaotic and rapidly evolving atmosphere in which paramedics must practice can lead to inconsistency between what is documented and the actual events. This leads to difficulty when trying to evaluate the practitioners and when implementing a QI program. In this study, we evaluated the prevalence of discrepancy between the video and written record for Rapid Sequence Intubation (RSI) performed in the field as a demonstration of the utility of video documentation in QI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a systematic retrospective chart review to compare written with video documentation in 100 consecutive prehospital RSI encounters in a single EMS agency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the patient care records (PCRs), only 6% matched the video record for all quality measures tracked. The largest reason for the discrepancy was in the time required to intubate (58%) whether LEMON was evaluated (42%), total number of intubation attempts (36%), first attempt success (24%), BVM used (18%), and whether an airway introducer device was used (12%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Written documentation is inaccurate compared to video documentation when used as a quality improvement process for EMS prehospital RSI encounters.</p>","PeriodicalId":73198,"journal":{"name":"HCA healthcare journal of medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10519629/pdf/26890216_vol4_iss4_279.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HCA healthcare journal of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36518/2689-0216.1183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Quality improvement (QI) is a major focus of all departments and fields of health care, including emergency medical services. The chaotic and rapidly evolving atmosphere in which paramedics must practice can lead to inconsistency between what is documented and the actual events. This leads to difficulty when trying to evaluate the practitioners and when implementing a QI program. In this study, we evaluated the prevalence of discrepancy between the video and written record for Rapid Sequence Intubation (RSI) performed in the field as a demonstration of the utility of video documentation in QI.

Methods: We used a systematic retrospective chart review to compare written with video documentation in 100 consecutive prehospital RSI encounters in a single EMS agency.

Results: Of the patient care records (PCRs), only 6% matched the video record for all quality measures tracked. The largest reason for the discrepancy was in the time required to intubate (58%) whether LEMON was evaluated (42%), total number of intubation attempts (36%), first attempt success (24%), BVM used (18%), and whether an airway introducer device was used (12%).

Conclusion: Written documentation is inaccurate compared to video documentation when used as a quality improvement process for EMS prehospital RSI encounters.

视频文档作为紧急医疗服务现场插管中书面文档准确性的衡量标准。
简介:质量改进(QI)是卫生保健所有部门和领域的主要关注点,包括紧急医疗服务。医护人员必须在混乱且快速演变的氛围中进行训练,这可能会导致记录的内容与实际事件之间的不一致。这导致在尝试评估从业者和实施QI计划时遇到困难。在这项研究中,我们评估了现场进行的快速序列插管(RSI)的视频和书面记录之间的差异发生率,以证明视频文件在QI中的实用性。结果:在患者护理记录(PCR)中,只有6%的记录与追踪的所有质量指标的视频记录相匹配。差异的最大原因是插管所需时间(58%)是否评估LEMON(42%)、插管尝试总数(36%)、首次尝试成功率(24%)、使用BVM(18%),以及是否使用了气道导入器(12%)。结论:当用作EMS院前RSI的质量改进过程时,书面文档与视频文档相比是不准确的。
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
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信