非运输后的救护车再接触分析:荷兰的回顾性队列研究。

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Susanne E de Loor, Tessa Verheij, Thomas Karol, Franciscus G M H M Cuppen, Frits van Dijk, Femke Goldstein, Joyce Janssen, Remco H A Ebben
{"title":"非运输后的救护车再接触分析:荷兰的回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Susanne E de Loor, Tessa Verheij, Thomas Karol, Franciscus G M H M Cuppen, Frits van Dijk, Femke Goldstein, Joyce Janssen, Remco H A Ebben","doi":"10.1186/s13049-025-01332-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non-conveyance is an increasing part of ambulance care and has to be safe. One of the indicators to measure safety is an ambulance re-contact within 72 h. However, solely measuring the percentage of re-contacts has limited validity as it lacks insight in actual reasons of an ambulance re-contact. Therefore, the aim of our study was to analyze the incidence, reasons and outcomes of ambulance re-contacts within 72 h after non-conveyance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a one year (2022) retrospective study in one EMS region in the Netherlands. Medical records of all non-conveyance runs with a re-contact were analyzed using a framework to categorize re-contact reasons in illness-related, patient-related, professional-related, and unrelated. Re-contact outcomes were measured in terms of (non-)conveyance and mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>585/13.879 (4.2%) non-conveyance runs had a re-contact within 72 h. 547/585 (93.5%) re-contacts could be categorized with the framework. Re-contacts were related to the illness (n = 267, 48.8%), the patient (n = 130, 23.8%), the professional (n = 106, 19.4%) and unrelated (n = 44, 8.0%). Four subreasons accounted for 68.5% of reasons for re-contacts: progression of disease (19.4%), recurrent disease process/exacerbation (18.6%), reassessment and ambulance request by another medical professional (15.9%), and psychiatric disorder and/or substance abuse (14.6%). 403/547 (73.7%) patients with a re-contact were conveyed to the hospital. Mortality rate for patients with a re-contact was 0.5%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Re-contact incidence after non-conveyance is relatively low, with a very small part of re-contacts related to ambulance care professionals making errors in diagnosis or treatment. Combined with low re-contact mortality, this indicates safe non-conveyance decisions. Re-contacts as quality indicator cover a variety of reasons, with almost half of the re-contacts being related to illness. Four subcategories accounted for the majority of all reasons for re-contacts: progression of disease, recurrent disease process/exacerbation, reassessment and ambulance request by another medical professional, and psychiatric disorder and/or substance abuse. Three-quarters of the patients were conveyed, although more re-contacts due to patient related reasons ended in non-conveyance again.</p>","PeriodicalId":49292,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation & Emergency Medicine","volume":"33 1","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786587/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An analysis of ambulance re-contacts after non-conveyance: a retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands.\",\"authors\":\"Susanne E de Loor, Tessa Verheij, Thomas Karol, Franciscus G M H M Cuppen, Frits van Dijk, Femke Goldstein, Joyce Janssen, Remco H A Ebben\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13049-025-01332-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non-conveyance is an increasing part of ambulance care and has to be safe. One of the indicators to measure safety is an ambulance re-contact within 72 h. However, solely measuring the percentage of re-contacts has limited validity as it lacks insight in actual reasons of an ambulance re-contact. Therefore, the aim of our study was to analyze the incidence, reasons and outcomes of ambulance re-contacts within 72 h after non-conveyance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a one year (2022) retrospective study in one EMS region in the Netherlands. Medical records of all non-conveyance runs with a re-contact were analyzed using a framework to categorize re-contact reasons in illness-related, patient-related, professional-related, and unrelated. Re-contact outcomes were measured in terms of (non-)conveyance and mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>585/13.879 (4.2%) non-conveyance runs had a re-contact within 72 h. 547/585 (93.5%) re-contacts could be categorized with the framework. Re-contacts were related to the illness (n = 267, 48.8%), the patient (n = 130, 23.8%), the professional (n = 106, 19.4%) and unrelated (n = 44, 8.0%). Four subreasons accounted for 68.5% of reasons for re-contacts: progression of disease (19.4%), recurrent disease process/exacerbation (18.6%), reassessment and ambulance request by another medical professional (15.9%), and psychiatric disorder and/or substance abuse (14.6%). 403/547 (73.7%) patients with a re-contact were conveyed to the hospital. Mortality rate for patients with a re-contact was 0.5%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Re-contact incidence after non-conveyance is relatively low, with a very small part of re-contacts related to ambulance care professionals making errors in diagnosis or treatment. Combined with low re-contact mortality, this indicates safe non-conveyance decisions. Re-contacts as quality indicator cover a variety of reasons, with almost half of the re-contacts being related to illness. Four subcategories accounted for the majority of all reasons for re-contacts: progression of disease, recurrent disease process/exacerbation, reassessment and ambulance request by another medical professional, and psychiatric disorder and/or substance abuse. Three-quarters of the patients were conveyed, although more re-contacts due to patient related reasons ended in non-conveyance again.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49292,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation & Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786587/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation & Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-025-01332-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation & Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-025-01332-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:非运输是救护车护理中越来越重要的一部分,必须是安全的。衡量安全的指标之一是救护车在72小时内的再次接触。然而,仅仅衡量再次接触的百分比是有限的,因为它缺乏对救护车再次接触的实际原因的洞察。因此,我们研究的目的是分析非运输后72小时内救护车再次接触的发生率、原因和结果。方法:我们在荷兰的一个EMS地区进行了为期一年(2022年)的回顾性研究。使用一个框架对所有非交通工具再接触者的医疗记录进行分析,将再接触原因分类为疾病相关、患者相关、专业相关和非相关。再接触结果以(非)传播和死亡率来衡量。结果:585/13.879例(4.2%)非传送带患儿在72h内再次接触,547/585例(93.5%)符合该框架。再接触者与疾病相关(267人,48.8%)、与患者相关(130人,23.8%)、与职业相关(106人,19.4%)、与疾病无关(44人,8.0%)。4个亚原因占再接触原因的68.5%:疾病进展(19.4%),疾病复发过程/加重(18.6%),由其他医疗专业人员重新评估和救护车请求(15.9%),精神障碍和/或药物滥用(14.6%)。再接触者403/547例(73.7%)被送往医院。再次接触者的死亡率为0.5%。结论:非转运后再接触发生率较低,极少部分再接触与救护人员诊断或治疗失误有关。结合低再接触死亡率,这表明安全的非传播决定。再接触作为质量指标涵盖了各种原因,几乎一半的再接触与疾病有关。在所有重新接触的原因中,有四个子类占大多数:疾病进展、疾病复发过程/恶化、另一名医疗专业人员的重新评估和救护车请求,以及精神障碍和/或药物滥用。四分之三的患者被转移,尽管由于患者相关原因再次接触以再次无法转移而告终。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An analysis of ambulance re-contacts after non-conveyance: a retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands.

Background: Non-conveyance is an increasing part of ambulance care and has to be safe. One of the indicators to measure safety is an ambulance re-contact within 72 h. However, solely measuring the percentage of re-contacts has limited validity as it lacks insight in actual reasons of an ambulance re-contact. Therefore, the aim of our study was to analyze the incidence, reasons and outcomes of ambulance re-contacts within 72 h after non-conveyance.

Methods: We conducted a one year (2022) retrospective study in one EMS region in the Netherlands. Medical records of all non-conveyance runs with a re-contact were analyzed using a framework to categorize re-contact reasons in illness-related, patient-related, professional-related, and unrelated. Re-contact outcomes were measured in terms of (non-)conveyance and mortality.

Results: 585/13.879 (4.2%) non-conveyance runs had a re-contact within 72 h. 547/585 (93.5%) re-contacts could be categorized with the framework. Re-contacts were related to the illness (n = 267, 48.8%), the patient (n = 130, 23.8%), the professional (n = 106, 19.4%) and unrelated (n = 44, 8.0%). Four subreasons accounted for 68.5% of reasons for re-contacts: progression of disease (19.4%), recurrent disease process/exacerbation (18.6%), reassessment and ambulance request by another medical professional (15.9%), and psychiatric disorder and/or substance abuse (14.6%). 403/547 (73.7%) patients with a re-contact were conveyed to the hospital. Mortality rate for patients with a re-contact was 0.5%.

Conclusions: Re-contact incidence after non-conveyance is relatively low, with a very small part of re-contacts related to ambulance care professionals making errors in diagnosis or treatment. Combined with low re-contact mortality, this indicates safe non-conveyance decisions. Re-contacts as quality indicator cover a variety of reasons, with almost half of the re-contacts being related to illness. Four subcategories accounted for the majority of all reasons for re-contacts: progression of disease, recurrent disease process/exacerbation, reassessment and ambulance request by another medical professional, and psychiatric disorder and/or substance abuse. Three-quarters of the patients were conveyed, although more re-contacts due to patient related reasons ended in non-conveyance again.

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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The primary topics of interest in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine (SJTREM) are the pre-hospital and early in-hospital diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of emergency medicine, trauma, and resuscitation. Contributions focusing on dispatch, major incidents, etiology, pathophysiology, rehabilitation, epidemiology, prevention, education, training, implementation, work environment, as well as ethical and socio-economic aspects may also be assessed for publication.
×
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