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}
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.
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.