Prehospital video triage of potential stroke patients in North Central London and East Kent: rapid mixed-methods service evaluation

A. Ramsay, J. Ledger, S. Tomini, C. Hall, D. Hargroves, P. Hunter, Simon Payne, Rajeshwari R. Mehta, R. Simister, Fola Tayo, N. Fulop
{"title":"Prehospital video triage of potential stroke patients in North Central London and East Kent: rapid mixed-methods service evaluation","authors":"A. Ramsay, J. Ledger, S. Tomini, C. Hall, D. Hargroves, P. Hunter, Simon Payne, Rajeshwari R. Mehta, R. Simister, Fola Tayo, N. Fulop","doi":"10.3310/iqzn1725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n In response to COVID-19, alongside other service changes, North Central London and East Kent implemented prehospital video triage: this involved stroke and ambulance clinicians communicating over FaceTime (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) to assess suspected stroke patients while still on scene.\n \n \n \n To evaluate the implementation, experience and impact of prehospital video triage in North Central London and East Kent.\n \n \n \n A rapid mixed-methods service evaluation (July 2020 to September 2021) using the following methods. (1) Evidence reviews: scoping review (15 reviews included) and rapid systematic review (47 papers included) on prehospital video triage for stroke, covering usability (audio-visual and signal quality); acceptability (whether or not clinicians want to use it); impact (on outcomes, safety, experience and cost-effectiveness); and factors influencing implementation. (2) Clinician views of prehospital video triage in North Central London and East Kent, covering usability, acceptability, patient safety and implementation: qualitative analysis of interviews with ambulance and stroke clinicians (n = 27), observations (n = 12) and documents (n = 23); a survey of ambulance clinicians (n = 233). (3) Impact on safety and quality: analysis of local ambulance conveyance times (n = 1400; April to September 2020). Analysis of national stroke audit data on ambulance conveyance and stroke unit delivery of clinical interventions in North Central London, East Kent and the rest of England (n = 137,650; July 2018 to December 2020).\n \n \n \n (1) Evidence: limited but growing, and sparse in UK settings. Prehospital video triage can be usable and acceptable, requiring clear network connection and audio-visual signal, clinician training and communication. Key knowledge gaps included impact on patient conveyance, patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness. (2) Clinician views. Usability – relied on stable Wi-Fi and audio-visual signals, and back-up processes for when signals failed. Clinicians described training as important for confidence in using prehospital video triage services, noting potential for ‘refresher’ courses and joint training events. Ambulance clinicians preferred more active training, as used in North Central London. Acceptability – most clinicians felt that prehospital video triage improved on previous processes and wanted it to continue or expand. Ambulance clinicians reported increased confidence in decisions. Stroke clinicians found doing assessments alongside their standard duties a source of pressure. Safety – clinical leaders monitored and managed potential patient safety issues; clinicians felt strongly that services were safe. Implementation – several factors enabled prehospital video triage at a system level (e.g. COVID-19) and more locally (e.g. facilitative governance, receptive clinicians). Clinical leaders reached across and beyond their organisations to engage clinicians, senior managers and the wider system. (3) Impact on safety and quality: we found no evidence of increased times from symptom onset to arrival at services or of stroke clinical interventions reducing in studied areas. We found several significant improvements relative to the rest of England (possibly resulting from other service changes).\n \n \n \n We could not interview patients and carers. Ambulance data had no historic or regional comparators. Stroke audit data were not at patient level. Several safety issues were not collected routinely. Our survey used a convenience sample.\n \n \n \n Prehospital video triage was perceived as usable, acceptable and safe in both areas.\n \n \n \n Qualitative research with patients, carers and other stakeholders and quantitative analysis of patient-level data on care delivery, outcomes and cost-effectiveness, using national controls. Focus on sustainability and roll-out of services.\n \n \n \n This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021254209.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/iqzn1725","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In response to COVID-19, alongside other service changes, North Central London and East Kent implemented prehospital video triage: this involved stroke and ambulance clinicians communicating over FaceTime (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) to assess suspected stroke patients while still on scene. To evaluate the implementation, experience and impact of prehospital video triage in North Central London and East Kent. A rapid mixed-methods service evaluation (July 2020 to September 2021) using the following methods. (1) Evidence reviews: scoping review (15 reviews included) and rapid systematic review (47 papers included) on prehospital video triage for stroke, covering usability (audio-visual and signal quality); acceptability (whether or not clinicians want to use it); impact (on outcomes, safety, experience and cost-effectiveness); and factors influencing implementation. (2) Clinician views of prehospital video triage in North Central London and East Kent, covering usability, acceptability, patient safety and implementation: qualitative analysis of interviews with ambulance and stroke clinicians (n = 27), observations (n = 12) and documents (n = 23); a survey of ambulance clinicians (n = 233). (3) Impact on safety and quality: analysis of local ambulance conveyance times (n = 1400; April to September 2020). Analysis of national stroke audit data on ambulance conveyance and stroke unit delivery of clinical interventions in North Central London, East Kent and the rest of England (n = 137,650; July 2018 to December 2020). (1) Evidence: limited but growing, and sparse in UK settings. Prehospital video triage can be usable and acceptable, requiring clear network connection and audio-visual signal, clinician training and communication. Key knowledge gaps included impact on patient conveyance, patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness. (2) Clinician views. Usability – relied on stable Wi-Fi and audio-visual signals, and back-up processes for when signals failed. Clinicians described training as important for confidence in using prehospital video triage services, noting potential for ‘refresher’ courses and joint training events. Ambulance clinicians preferred more active training, as used in North Central London. Acceptability – most clinicians felt that prehospital video triage improved on previous processes and wanted it to continue or expand. Ambulance clinicians reported increased confidence in decisions. Stroke clinicians found doing assessments alongside their standard duties a source of pressure. Safety – clinical leaders monitored and managed potential patient safety issues; clinicians felt strongly that services were safe. Implementation – several factors enabled prehospital video triage at a system level (e.g. COVID-19) and more locally (e.g. facilitative governance, receptive clinicians). Clinical leaders reached across and beyond their organisations to engage clinicians, senior managers and the wider system. (3) Impact on safety and quality: we found no evidence of increased times from symptom onset to arrival at services or of stroke clinical interventions reducing in studied areas. We found several significant improvements relative to the rest of England (possibly resulting from other service changes). We could not interview patients and carers. Ambulance data had no historic or regional comparators. Stroke audit data were not at patient level. Several safety issues were not collected routinely. Our survey used a convenience sample. Prehospital video triage was perceived as usable, acceptable and safe in both areas. Qualitative research with patients, carers and other stakeholders and quantitative analysis of patient-level data on care delivery, outcomes and cost-effectiveness, using national controls. Focus on sustainability and roll-out of services. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021254209. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
伦敦中北部和肯特东部潜在中风患者院前视频分诊:快速混合方法服务评估
为了应对新冠肺炎,以及其他服务变化,伦敦中北部和东肯特实施了院前视频分诊:这包括中风和救护车临床医生通过FaceTime(美国加利福尼亚州库比蒂诺股份有限公司)进行沟通,以评估仍在现场的疑似中风患者。评估伦敦中北部和东肯特郡院前视频分诊的实施、经验和影响。使用以下方法进行的快速混合方法服务评估(2020年7月至2021年9月)。(1) 证据审查:关于脑卒中院前视频分诊的范围审查(包括15篇审查)和快速系统审查(包括47篇论文),涵盖可用性(视听和信号质量);可接受性(无论临床医生是否愿意使用);影响(对结果、安全、经验和成本效益);以及影响执行的因素。(2) 临床医生对伦敦中北部和东肯特郡院前视频分诊的看法,包括可用性、可接受性、患者安全性和实施:对救护车和中风临床医生访谈的定性分析(n = 27),观测值(n = 12) 和文档(n = 23);救护车临床医生的调查(n = 233)。(3) 对安全和质量的影响:对当地救护车运送次数(n = 1400;2020年4月至9月)。对伦敦中北部、东肯特和英格兰其他地区救护车运送和卒中单元临床干预的国家卒中审计数据的分析(n = 137650;2018年7月至2020年12月)。(1) 证据:有限但不断增长,在英国环境中稀少。院前视频分诊是可用和可接受的,需要清晰的网络连接和视听信号、临床医生培训和沟通。关键知识差距包括对患者转运、患者结果和成本效益的影响。(2) 临床医生观点。可用性–依赖于稳定的Wi-Fi和视听信号,以及信号故障时的备份过程。临床医生表示,培训对使用院前视频分诊服务的信心很重要,并指出了“进修”课程和联合培训活动的潜力。救护车临床医生更喜欢更积极的培训,就像在伦敦中北部使用的那样。可接受性——大多数临床医生认为院前视频分诊在以前的流程上有所改进,并希望其继续或扩大。救护车临床医生报告说,他们对决策更有信心。中风临床医生发现,在履行标准职责的同时进行评估是压力的来源。安全——临床领导监测和管理潜在的患者安全问题;临床医生强烈认为服务是安全的。实施——几个因素使院前视频分诊能够在系统层面(如新冠肺炎)和更局部地进行(如促进性治理、接受性临床医生)。临床领导者在组织内外进行接触,让临床医生、高级管理人员和更广泛的系统参与进来。(3) 对安全性和质量的影响:我们没有发现任何证据表明,在研究区域,从症状出现到到达服务的时间增加,或者中风临床干预措施减少。与英格兰其他地区相比,我们发现了一些显著的改进(可能是由于其他服务的变化)。我们无法采访病人和护理人员。救护车数据没有历史或区域比较数据。中风审计数据不在患者层面。一些安全问题没有定期收集。我们的调查使用了方便样本。院前视频分诊在这两个方面都被认为是可用的、可接受的和安全的。利用国家控制,对患者、护理人员和其他利益相关者进行定性研究,并对患者层面的护理提供、结果和成本效益数据进行定量分析。关注可持续性和服务的推出。本研究注册为PROSPERO CRD42021254209。该项目由国家卫生与护理研究所(NIHR)卫生与社会护理提供研究计划资助,并将在《卫生与社会保健提供研究》上全文发表;第10卷,第26期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
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
1.00
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信