当前紧急医疗服务系统的方法拒绝评估,治疗,或运输:检查全国协议。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Rana Barghout, Joshua Lachs, William Haussner, David Hancock, Alyssa Elman, Emily Benton, Douglas Kupas, Ronald Strony, Dennis Rowe, Cory Henkel, Bess White, Phylise Banner, Mark Lachs, Tony Rosen
{"title":"当前紧急医疗服务系统的方法拒绝评估,治疗,或运输:检查全国协议。","authors":"Rana Barghout, Joshua Lachs, William Haussner, David Hancock, Alyssa Elman, Emily Benton, Douglas Kupas, Ronald Strony, Dennis Rowe, Cory Henkel, Bess White, Phylise Banner, Mark Lachs, Tony Rosen","doi":"10.1080/10903127.2025.2537861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Many emergency medical services (EMS) 9-1-1 activations result in patients declining evaluation, treatment, or transport to the emergency department (ED). Assessment of a patient's decision-making capacity to refuse and taking appropriate actions based on that are critical elements of EMS practice. However, EMS clinician approaches in this area are under-studied, and variation may exist. As EMS practice is highly protocolized, our goal was to examine all publicly available United States (U.S.) state protocols and describe their guidance around refusals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a structured, multi-step content analysis and published expert recommendations on managing refusal of care in health care settings to identify 35 specific elements within five domains of prehospital refusal management: decision-making capacity assessment, risk assessment, persuasion, escalation to medical oversight, and documentation. We systematically and comprehensively reviewed 34 state protocols and a U.S. national protocol for the presence of these elements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 34 state protocols examined, 24% (8) had no guidance on refusal, with 18% (6) including at least some guidance in all domains. Among states with any guidance on refusal, we found a median of 15, a mean of 15, and a range of 5-25 elements included. Three states (9%) discussed all four components of decision-making capacity. Seven (21%) emphasized assessing risk of a severe medical emergency when considering refusal. Guidance on persuasion for high-risk patients was included in 13 (38%). Escalation to direct medical oversight was present in 20 (59%). Only 21 (62%) of protocols provided specific documentation guidelines. Notably, guidance was identified in state protocols that is inconsistent with expert recommendations for management of refusal in the ED. Checklists were included in 4 (12%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Substantial variability exists among state protocols regarding patient refusal guidance. Few protocols address high-risk patients, provide strategies for persuasion, or include checklists for proper management. Standardizing and expanding protocols may enhance EMS care.</p>","PeriodicalId":20336,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital Emergency Care","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current Emergency Medical Services Systems Approaches to Refusal of Assessment, Treatment, or Transport: Examination of Statewide Protocols.\",\"authors\":\"Rana Barghout, Joshua Lachs, William Haussner, David Hancock, Alyssa Elman, Emily Benton, Douglas Kupas, Ronald Strony, Dennis Rowe, Cory Henkel, Bess White, Phylise Banner, Mark Lachs, Tony Rosen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10903127.2025.2537861\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Many emergency medical services (EMS) 9-1-1 activations result in patients declining evaluation, treatment, or transport to the emergency department (ED). Assessment of a patient's decision-making capacity to refuse and taking appropriate actions based on that are critical elements of EMS practice. However, EMS clinician approaches in this area are under-studied, and variation may exist. As EMS practice is highly protocolized, our goal was to examine all publicly available United States (U.S.) state protocols and describe their guidance around refusals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a structured, multi-step content analysis and published expert recommendations on managing refusal of care in health care settings to identify 35 specific elements within five domains of prehospital refusal management: decision-making capacity assessment, risk assessment, persuasion, escalation to medical oversight, and documentation. We systematically and comprehensively reviewed 34 state protocols and a U.S. national protocol for the presence of these elements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 34 state protocols examined, 24% (8) had no guidance on refusal, with 18% (6) including at least some guidance in all domains. Among states with any guidance on refusal, we found a median of 15, a mean of 15, and a range of 5-25 elements included. Three states (9%) discussed all four components of decision-making capacity. Seven (21%) emphasized assessing risk of a severe medical emergency when considering refusal. Guidance on persuasion for high-risk patients was included in 13 (38%). Escalation to direct medical oversight was present in 20 (59%). Only 21 (62%) of protocols provided specific documentation guidelines. Notably, guidance was identified in state protocols that is inconsistent with expert recommendations for management of refusal in the ED. Checklists were included in 4 (12%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Substantial variability exists among state protocols regarding patient refusal guidance. Few protocols address high-risk patients, provide strategies for persuasion, or include checklists for proper management. Standardizing and expanding protocols may enhance EMS care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20336,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prehospital Emergency Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-23\",\"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/10.1080/10903127.2025.2537861\",\"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/10.1080/10903127.2025.2537861","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:许多紧急医疗服务(EMS) 9-1-1激活导致患者拒绝评估,治疗或转移到急诊科(ED)。评估病人拒绝的决策能力,并在此基础上采取适当的行动是EMS实践的关键要素。然而,EMS临床医生在这一领域的方法研究不足,可能存在差异。由于EMS实践是高度协议化的,我们的目标是检查所有公开可用的美国(U.S.)州协议,并描述它们对拒绝的指导。方法:我们采用结构化的、多步骤的内容分析和发表的关于医疗机构拒绝护理管理的专家建议,以确定院前拒绝管理的五个领域中的35个具体要素:决策能力评估、风险评估、说服、升级到医疗监督和文件。我们系统和全面地审查了34个州的协议和美国的国家协议,以了解这些元素的存在。结果:在所审查的34个州协议中,24%(8个)没有拒绝指导,18%(6个)在所有领域至少包括一些指导。在有任何拒绝指导的州中,我们发现中位数为15,平均值为15,范围为5-25个元素。三个州(9%)讨论了决策能力的所有四个组成部分。7个(21%)强调在考虑拒绝时评估严重医疗紧急情况的风险。13例(38%)纳入高危患者劝导指导。有20例(59%)升级为直接医疗监督。只有21个(62%)方案提供了具体的文档指南。值得注意的是,在州协议中确定的指导意见与急诊室拒绝管理的专家建议不一致。清单包括在4(12%)中。结论:各州关于患者拒绝指导的协议存在很大差异。很少有方案针对高危患者,提供说服策略,或包括适当管理的清单。标准化和扩展协议可以提高紧急医疗服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Current Emergency Medical Services Systems Approaches to Refusal of Assessment, Treatment, or Transport: Examination of Statewide Protocols.

Objectives: Many emergency medical services (EMS) 9-1-1 activations result in patients declining evaluation, treatment, or transport to the emergency department (ED). Assessment of a patient's decision-making capacity to refuse and taking appropriate actions based on that are critical elements of EMS practice. However, EMS clinician approaches in this area are under-studied, and variation may exist. As EMS practice is highly protocolized, our goal was to examine all publicly available United States (U.S.) state protocols and describe their guidance around refusals.

Methods: We used a structured, multi-step content analysis and published expert recommendations on managing refusal of care in health care settings to identify 35 specific elements within five domains of prehospital refusal management: decision-making capacity assessment, risk assessment, persuasion, escalation to medical oversight, and documentation. We systematically and comprehensively reviewed 34 state protocols and a U.S. national protocol for the presence of these elements.

Results: Among 34 state protocols examined, 24% (8) had no guidance on refusal, with 18% (6) including at least some guidance in all domains. Among states with any guidance on refusal, we found a median of 15, a mean of 15, and a range of 5-25 elements included. Three states (9%) discussed all four components of decision-making capacity. Seven (21%) emphasized assessing risk of a severe medical emergency when considering refusal. Guidance on persuasion for high-risk patients was included in 13 (38%). Escalation to direct medical oversight was present in 20 (59%). Only 21 (62%) of protocols provided specific documentation guidelines. Notably, guidance was identified in state protocols that is inconsistent with expert recommendations for management of refusal in the ED. Checklists were included in 4 (12%).

Conclusions: Substantial variability exists among state protocols regarding patient refusal guidance. Few protocols address high-risk patients, provide strategies for persuasion, or include checklists for proper management. Standardizing and expanding protocols may enhance EMS care.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信