德国紧急医疗服务对患者诊断和结果反馈的迫切需求——来自网络调查的见解。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Anika Kästner, Petra Lücker, Lutz Fischer, Timm Laslo, Berthold Henkel, Jennifer Ehleben, Wolfgang Hoffmann, Neeltje van den Berg
{"title":"德国紧急医疗服务对患者诊断和结果反馈的迫切需求——来自网络调查的见解。","authors":"Anika Kästner, Petra Lücker, Lutz Fischer, Timm Laslo, Berthold Henkel, Jennifer Ehleben, Wolfgang Hoffmann, Neeltje van den Berg","doi":"10.1186/s12873-025-01218-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>German Emergency Medical Services (EMS) face growing scrutiny due to regional disparities in quality of care. It is unclear if and how feedback in general is currently provided to EMS staff in Germany, and whether EMS staff receives feedback on patients' diagnoses and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A web-based survey was conducted from June to August 2024 among physician and non-physician EMS staff, focusing on current feedback reception and the perceived need for feedback systems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of N = 428 EMS professionals participated in the survey. One-third of the participants reported receiving no feedback (n = 136, 31.8%), while over half of those who did, received feedback infrequently (n = 157, 55.5%). Informal feedback was the main source, with 95.4% of respondents desiring official feedback on the confirmed in-hospital diagnosis, e.g., to learn from previous cases. While 57.5% of emergency physicians occasionally or frequently receive information about the further course of treatment for patients after transport to the hospital, this was reported by only 14.3% (advanced emergency medical technicians) to 29.2% (emergency medical technicians) of non-physician EMS staff. More than 85% of the respondents stated that diagnosis feedback would improve the quality of EMS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Structured feedback mechanisms, essential for quality assurance and improvement, are largely absent for EMS staff in Germany, especially for non-physicians. A strong desire among EMS staff for structured feedback on patients' diagnoses and outcomes was found, which could improve quality of care and staff competence development. However, significant infrastructural and legal barriers persist, hindering the implementation of standardized digital feedback systems within Germany's federalized EMS structure.</p>","PeriodicalId":9002,"journal":{"name":"BMC Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 1","pages":"66"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12010660/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The urgent need for patients' diagnoses and outcome feedback in Germany's emergency medical services - insights from a web-based survey.\",\"authors\":\"Anika Kästner, Petra Lücker, Lutz Fischer, Timm Laslo, Berthold Henkel, Jennifer Ehleben, Wolfgang Hoffmann, Neeltje van den Berg\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12873-025-01218-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>German Emergency Medical Services (EMS) face growing scrutiny due to regional disparities in quality of care. It is unclear if and how feedback in general is currently provided to EMS staff in Germany, and whether EMS staff receives feedback on patients' diagnoses and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A web-based survey was conducted from June to August 2024 among physician and non-physician EMS staff, focusing on current feedback reception and the perceived need for feedback systems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of N = 428 EMS professionals participated in the survey. One-third of the participants reported receiving no feedback (n = 136, 31.8%), while over half of those who did, received feedback infrequently (n = 157, 55.5%). Informal feedback was the main source, with 95.4% of respondents desiring official feedback on the confirmed in-hospital diagnosis, e.g., to learn from previous cases. While 57.5% of emergency physicians occasionally or frequently receive information about the further course of treatment for patients after transport to the hospital, this was reported by only 14.3% (advanced emergency medical technicians) to 29.2% (emergency medical technicians) of non-physician EMS staff. More than 85% of the respondents stated that diagnosis feedback would improve the quality of EMS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Structured feedback mechanisms, essential for quality assurance and improvement, are largely absent for EMS staff in Germany, especially for non-physicians. A strong desire among EMS staff for structured feedback on patients' diagnoses and outcomes was found, which could improve quality of care and staff competence development. However, significant infrastructural and legal barriers persist, hindering the implementation of standardized digital feedback systems within Germany's federalized EMS structure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9002,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"66\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12010660/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-025-01218-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"BMC Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-025-01218-8","RegionNum":3,"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:德国紧急医疗服务(EMS)面临越来越多的审查,由于在护理质量的地区差异。目前尚不清楚是否以及如何向德国的EMS工作人员提供一般反馈,以及EMS工作人员是否收到有关患者诊断和结果的反馈。方法:于2024年6月至8月对内科医生和非内科医生EMS工作人员进行网络调查,重点关注当前的反馈接收情况和对反馈系统的感知需求。结果:共有N = 428名EMS专业人员参与调查。三分之一的参与者报告没有收到反馈(n = 136, 31.8%),而超过一半的有反馈的人很少收到反馈(n = 157, 55.5%)。非正式反馈是主要来源,95.4%的答复者希望得到关于确诊的住院诊断的正式反馈,例如,从以前的病例中学习。虽然57.5%的急诊医生偶尔或经常收到关于病人转送到医院后的进一步治疗过程的信息,但只有14.3%(高级急诊医疗技术人员)至29.2%(急诊医疗技术人员)的非医师EMS工作人员报告了这一点。超过85%的受访者表示,诊断反馈可以提高EMS的质量。结论:结构化的反馈机制对质量保证和改进至关重要,但在德国EMS工作人员中,尤其是非医生,基本上缺乏反馈机制。EMS员工强烈希望对患者的诊断和结果进行结构化的反馈,这可以提高护理质量和员工能力的发展。然而,重要的基础设施和法律障碍仍然存在,阻碍了德国联邦EMS结构中标准化数字反馈系统的实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The urgent need for patients' diagnoses and outcome feedback in Germany's emergency medical services - insights from a web-based survey.

Background: German Emergency Medical Services (EMS) face growing scrutiny due to regional disparities in quality of care. It is unclear if and how feedback in general is currently provided to EMS staff in Germany, and whether EMS staff receives feedback on patients' diagnoses and outcomes.

Methods: A web-based survey was conducted from June to August 2024 among physician and non-physician EMS staff, focusing on current feedback reception and the perceived need for feedback systems.

Results: A total of N = 428 EMS professionals participated in the survey. One-third of the participants reported receiving no feedback (n = 136, 31.8%), while over half of those who did, received feedback infrequently (n = 157, 55.5%). Informal feedback was the main source, with 95.4% of respondents desiring official feedback on the confirmed in-hospital diagnosis, e.g., to learn from previous cases. While 57.5% of emergency physicians occasionally or frequently receive information about the further course of treatment for patients after transport to the hospital, this was reported by only 14.3% (advanced emergency medical technicians) to 29.2% (emergency medical technicians) of non-physician EMS staff. More than 85% of the respondents stated that diagnosis feedback would improve the quality of EMS.

Conclusion: Structured feedback mechanisms, essential for quality assurance and improvement, are largely absent for EMS staff in Germany, especially for non-physicians. A strong desire among EMS staff for structured feedback on patients' diagnoses and outcomes was found, which could improve quality of care and staff competence development. However, significant infrastructural and legal barriers persist, hindering the implementation of standardized digital feedback systems within Germany's federalized EMS structure.

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
BMC Emergency Medicine
BMC Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
178
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Emergency Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all urgent and emergency aspects of medicine, in both practice and basic research. In addition, the journal covers aspects of disaster medicine and medicine in special locations, such as conflict areas and military medicine, together with articles concerning healthcare services in the emergency departments.
×
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