确定拒绝紧急医疗服务转运能力的关键步骤:改良德尔菲研究。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Eli A Carrillo,Steven P Ignell,Sharon Wulfovich,Michael J Vernon,Stefanie S Sebok-Syer
{"title":"确定拒绝紧急医疗服务转运能力的关键步骤:改良德尔菲研究。","authors":"Eli A Carrillo,Steven P Ignell,Sharon Wulfovich,Michael J Vernon,Stefanie S Sebok-Syer","doi":"10.1080/10903127.2024.2403650","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVES\r\nEmergency physicians without specialized Emergency Medical Services (EMS) training are often required to provide online medical oversight. One common ethical question faced by these physicians is the assessment for decision-making capacity in a patient who does not accept EMS transport to the hospital. We sought expert consensus for a standardized set of guiding questions and recommendations to ensure a rigorous and feasible capacity assessment.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nA modified Delphi method approach was used to achieve group consensus among expert individuals. Nineteen physician experts were recruited from across the country, representing populations totaling over 22 million and a variety of urban, suburban, and rural practice environments. Experts completed a Round 1 survey that included 19 questions surrounding best practices for capacity evaluation among patients refusing transport. The threshold for consensus was predefined as 80% agreement. Participants gathered virtually meeting where the results from the first round were shared with the group. Discussion generated new items and refined the language of existing items. Following the virtual meeting, a Round 2 survey was conducted, and voted on by the panel for the items that did not meet consensus in Round 1.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nAfter the first round, 15 of 19 items reached consensus. Three of the items that met consensus were universally noted to require language modification for clarification. A large portion of the discussion involved the proper method of integrating patient concerns around ambulance transport (e.g., cost of transport, financial concerns, social barriers) into the capacity assessment and whether alternate care options should be discussed. After the second round of voting, one additional item was reversed to meet consensus, resulting in a total of 16 items.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nA consensus expert panel was able to agree upon 16 standardized steps to guide best practices and assist emergency physicians in real-time evaluation of patients that refuse EMS transport.","PeriodicalId":20336,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital Emergency Care","volume":"7 1","pages":"1-18"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critical Steps for Determining Capacity to Refuse Emergency Medical Services Transport: A Modified Delphi Study.\",\"authors\":\"Eli A Carrillo,Steven P Ignell,Sharon Wulfovich,Michael J Vernon,Stefanie S Sebok-Syer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10903127.2024.2403650\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVES\\r\\nEmergency physicians without specialized Emergency Medical Services (EMS) training are often required to provide online medical oversight. One common ethical question faced by these physicians is the assessment for decision-making capacity in a patient who does not accept EMS transport to the hospital. We sought expert consensus for a standardized set of guiding questions and recommendations to ensure a rigorous and feasible capacity assessment.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nA modified Delphi method approach was used to achieve group consensus among expert individuals. Nineteen physician experts were recruited from across the country, representing populations totaling over 22 million and a variety of urban, suburban, and rural practice environments. Experts completed a Round 1 survey that included 19 questions surrounding best practices for capacity evaluation among patients refusing transport. The threshold for consensus was predefined as 80% agreement. Participants gathered virtually meeting where the results from the first round were shared with the group. Discussion generated new items and refined the language of existing items. Following the virtual meeting, a Round 2 survey was conducted, and voted on by the panel for the items that did not meet consensus in Round 1.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nAfter the first round, 15 of 19 items reached consensus. Three of the items that met consensus were universally noted to require language modification for clarification. A large portion of the discussion involved the proper method of integrating patient concerns around ambulance transport (e.g., cost of transport, financial concerns, social barriers) into the capacity assessment and whether alternate care options should be discussed. After the second round of voting, one additional item was reversed to meet consensus, resulting in a total of 16 items.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nA consensus expert panel was able to agree upon 16 standardized steps to guide best practices and assist emergency physicians in real-time evaluation of patients that refuse EMS transport.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20336,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prehospital Emergency Care\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"1-18\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"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/10.1080/10903127.2024.2403650\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prehospital Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2024.2403650","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

摘要

目的没有接受过专业急救医疗服务(EMS)培训的急诊医生经常需要提供在线医疗监督。这些医生面临的一个常见伦理问题是如何评估不接受 EMS 送医的患者的决策能力。我们寻求专家就一套标准化的指导问题和建议达成共识,以确保能力评估的严格性和可行性。方法我们采用了改良德尔菲法,以在专家之间达成集体共识。我们在全国范围内招募了 19 位医生专家,他们代表了超过 2200 万的人口,以及城市、郊区和农村的各种执业环境。专家们完成了第一轮调查,其中包括围绕拒绝转运病人的容量评估最佳实践的 19 个问题。达成共识的阈值预先设定为 80%。参与者以虚拟会议的形式聚集在一起,与小组成员分享第一轮调查的结果。讨论产生了新的项目,并完善了现有项目的语言。虚拟会议结束后,进行了第二轮调查,小组对第一轮未达成共识的项目进行了投票。在达成共识的项目中,有 3 个项目被普遍认为需要修改措辞以求明确。大部分讨论涉及将患者对救护车运送的担忧(如运送成本、经济担忧、社会障碍)纳入能力评估的适当方法,以及是否应讨论替代护理方案。第二轮投票结束后,为达成共识,又撤销了一个项目,最终共有 16 个项目。结论专家小组达成共识,商定了 16 个标准化步骤,以指导最佳实践,并协助急诊医生对拒绝急救运送的患者进行实时评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Critical Steps for Determining Capacity to Refuse Emergency Medical Services Transport: A Modified Delphi Study.
OBJECTIVES Emergency physicians without specialized Emergency Medical Services (EMS) training are often required to provide online medical oversight. One common ethical question faced by these physicians is the assessment for decision-making capacity in a patient who does not accept EMS transport to the hospital. We sought expert consensus for a standardized set of guiding questions and recommendations to ensure a rigorous and feasible capacity assessment. METHODS A modified Delphi method approach was used to achieve group consensus among expert individuals. Nineteen physician experts were recruited from across the country, representing populations totaling over 22 million and a variety of urban, suburban, and rural practice environments. Experts completed a Round 1 survey that included 19 questions surrounding best practices for capacity evaluation among patients refusing transport. The threshold for consensus was predefined as 80% agreement. Participants gathered virtually meeting where the results from the first round were shared with the group. Discussion generated new items and refined the language of existing items. Following the virtual meeting, a Round 2 survey was conducted, and voted on by the panel for the items that did not meet consensus in Round 1. RESULTS After the first round, 15 of 19 items reached consensus. Three of the items that met consensus were universally noted to require language modification for clarification. A large portion of the discussion involved the proper method of integrating patient concerns around ambulance transport (e.g., cost of transport, financial concerns, social barriers) into the capacity assessment and whether alternate care options should be discussed. After the second round of voting, one additional item was reversed to meet consensus, resulting in a total of 16 items. CONCLUSIONS A consensus expert panel was able to agree upon 16 standardized steps to guide best practices and assist emergency physicians in real-time evaluation of patients that refuse EMS transport.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信