护理人员到全科医生转诊途径在澳大利亚管辖的救护车临床实践指南:文件分析。

Belinda Delardes, Mostyn Gooley, Kelly-Ann Bowles, Samantha Chakraborty
{"title":"护理人员到全科医生转诊途径在澳大利亚管辖的救护车临床实践指南:文件分析。","authors":"Belinda Delardes, Mostyn Gooley, Kelly-Ann Bowles, Samantha Chakraborty","doi":"10.1071/AH24335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objectives We aimed to compare the prevalence and clarity of paramedic to general practitioner (GP) referral pathways among clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of Australian jurisdictional ambulance services (JASs). Methods We completed a document analysis on all publicly available Australian JAS CPGs that were accessed online during 2024. We appraised CPGs according to the AGREE II Domain 4: Clarity of Presentation criteria. Results We located 711 CPGs across the eight Australian JASs, of which 109 (15%) referenced a pathway to GP referral. Overall, 5.5% (n =6/109) of CPGs met all the AGREE II Domain 4 criteria and considerations. The items most frequently satisfied across CPGs were (i) 'specific recommendations are appropriately selected and reflect the key messages of the guideline' and (ii) 'specific recommendations are grouped together in one section', both of which were met in 96% (105/109) of CPGs. The item least often satisfied was 'uncertainty in the interpretation and discussion of the evidence is reflected in the recommendations and explicitly stated', with only 17% (18/109) of CPGs including a discussion of evidence supporting or cautioning referral to GP pathways. Inclusion of a 'specific and unambiguous statement of the recommended action' was also consistently lacking from CPGs, with only 23% (25/109) of CPGs with referral pathways giving a specific timeframe within which the patient should be seen by a GP. Conclusion A minority of Australian JAS CPGs include a referral to GP pathway, however, these recommendations are generally non-specific and ambiguous, limiting usability for paramedics.</p>","PeriodicalId":93891,"journal":{"name":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Paramedic to general practitioner referral pathways within Australian jurisdictional ambulance clinical practice guidelines: a document analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Belinda Delardes, Mostyn Gooley, Kelly-Ann Bowles, Samantha Chakraborty\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/AH24335\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Objectives We aimed to compare the prevalence and clarity of paramedic to general practitioner (GP) referral pathways among clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of Australian jurisdictional ambulance services (JASs). Methods We completed a document analysis on all publicly available Australian JAS CPGs that were accessed online during 2024. We appraised CPGs according to the AGREE II Domain 4: Clarity of Presentation criteria. Results We located 711 CPGs across the eight Australian JASs, of which 109 (15%) referenced a pathway to GP referral. Overall, 5.5% (n =6/109) of CPGs met all the AGREE II Domain 4 criteria and considerations. The items most frequently satisfied across CPGs were (i) 'specific recommendations are appropriately selected and reflect the key messages of the guideline' and (ii) 'specific recommendations are grouped together in one section', both of which were met in 96% (105/109) of CPGs. The item least often satisfied was 'uncertainty in the interpretation and discussion of the evidence is reflected in the recommendations and explicitly stated', with only 17% (18/109) of CPGs including a discussion of evidence supporting or cautioning referral to GP pathways. Inclusion of a 'specific and unambiguous statement of the recommended action' was also consistently lacking from CPGs, with only 23% (25/109) of CPGs with referral pathways giving a specific timeframe within which the patient should be seen by a GP. Conclusion A minority of Australian JAS CPGs include a referral to GP pathway, however, these recommendations are generally non-specific and ambiguous, limiting usability for paramedics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93891,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH24335\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH24335","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们旨在比较澳大利亚辖区救护车服务(JASs)的临床实践指南(cpg)中护理人员和全科医生(GP)转诊途径的患病率和清晰度。方法对所有公开获取的澳大利亚JAS CPGs进行文献分析。我们根据AGREE II领域4:表述清晰度标准评估cpg。结果我们在澳大利亚8个JASs中定位了711个cpg,其中109个(15%)参考了GP转诊途径。总体而言,5.5% (n=6/109)的cpg符合所有的AGREE II Domain 4标准和考虑因素。在cpg中最常被满足的项目是(i)“适当选择具体建议,并反映指引的主要信息”及(ii)“具体的建议被集中在一个部分”,96%(105/109)的cpg都满足了这两个要求。最不满意的项目是“对证据的解释和讨论的不确定性反映在建议中并明确说明”,只有17%(18/109)的cpg包括支持或警告转诊到全科医生途径的证据的讨论。cpg也一直缺乏“具体和明确的推荐措施声明”,只有23%(25/109)的cpg有转诊途径,给出了患者应该由全科医生就诊的具体时间框架。结论少数澳大利亚JAS CPGs包括转诊GP途径,然而,这些建议通常是非特异性和模糊的,限制了护理人员的可用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Paramedic to general practitioner referral pathways within Australian jurisdictional ambulance clinical practice guidelines: a document analysis.

Objectives We aimed to compare the prevalence and clarity of paramedic to general practitioner (GP) referral pathways among clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of Australian jurisdictional ambulance services (JASs). Methods We completed a document analysis on all publicly available Australian JAS CPGs that were accessed online during 2024. We appraised CPGs according to the AGREE II Domain 4: Clarity of Presentation criteria. Results We located 711 CPGs across the eight Australian JASs, of which 109 (15%) referenced a pathway to GP referral. Overall, 5.5% (n =6/109) of CPGs met all the AGREE II Domain 4 criteria and considerations. The items most frequently satisfied across CPGs were (i) 'specific recommendations are appropriately selected and reflect the key messages of the guideline' and (ii) 'specific recommendations are grouped together in one section', both of which were met in 96% (105/109) of CPGs. The item least often satisfied was 'uncertainty in the interpretation and discussion of the evidence is reflected in the recommendations and explicitly stated', with only 17% (18/109) of CPGs including a discussion of evidence supporting or cautioning referral to GP pathways. Inclusion of a 'specific and unambiguous statement of the recommended action' was also consistently lacking from CPGs, with only 23% (25/109) of CPGs with referral pathways giving a specific timeframe within which the patient should be seen by a GP. Conclusion A minority of Australian JAS CPGs include a referral to GP pathway, however, these recommendations are generally non-specific and ambiguous, limiting usability for paramedics.

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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信