急诊医疗服务效益评分的发展:欧洲德尔菲研究。

Anssi Heino, Lasse Raatiniemi, Timo Iirola, Merja Meriläinen, Janne Liisanantti, Miretta Tommila
{"title":"急诊医疗服务效益评分的发展:欧洲德尔菲研究。","authors":"Anssi Heino,&nbsp;Lasse Raatiniemi,&nbsp;Timo Iirola,&nbsp;Merja Meriläinen,&nbsp;Janne Liisanantti,&nbsp;Miretta Tommila","doi":"10.1186/s13049-021-00966-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The helicopter emergency services (HEMS) Benefit Score (HBS) is a nine-level scoring system developed to evaluate the benefits of HEMS missions. The HBS has been in clinical use for two decades in its original form. Advances in prehospital care, however, have produced demand for a revision of the HBS. Therefore, we developed the emergency medical services (EMS) Benefit Score (EBS) based on the former HBS. As reflected by its name, the aim of the EBS is to measure the benefits produced by the whole EMS systems to patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a four-round, web-based, international Delphi consensus study with a consensus definition made by experts from seven countries. Participants reviewed items of the revised HBS on a 5-point Likert scale. A content validity index (CVI) was calculated, and agreement was defined as a 70% CVI. Study included experts from seven European countries. Of these, 18 were prehospital expert panellists and 11 were in-hospital commentary board members.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The first Delphi round resulted in 1248 intervention examples divided into ten diagnostic categories. After removing overlapping examples, 413 interventions were included in the second Delphi round, which resulted in 38 examples divided into HBS categories 3-8. In the third Delphi round, these resulted in 37 prehospital interventions, examples of which were given revised version of the score. In the fourth and final Delphi round, the expert panel was given an opportunity to accept or comment on the revised scoring system.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The former HBS was revised by a Delphi methodology and EBS developed to represent its structural purpose better. The EBS includes 37 exemplar prehospital interventions to guide its clinical use. Trial registration The study permission was requested and granted by Turku University Hospital (decision number TP2/010/18).</p>","PeriodicalId":501057,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8520267/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The development of emergency medical services benefit score: a European Delphi study.\",\"authors\":\"Anssi Heino,&nbsp;Lasse Raatiniemi,&nbsp;Timo Iirola,&nbsp;Merja Meriläinen,&nbsp;Janne Liisanantti,&nbsp;Miretta Tommila\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13049-021-00966-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The helicopter emergency services (HEMS) Benefit Score (HBS) is a nine-level scoring system developed to evaluate the benefits of HEMS missions. The HBS has been in clinical use for two decades in its original form. Advances in prehospital care, however, have produced demand for a revision of the HBS. Therefore, we developed the emergency medical services (EMS) Benefit Score (EBS) based on the former HBS. As reflected by its name, the aim of the EBS is to measure the benefits produced by the whole EMS systems to patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a four-round, web-based, international Delphi consensus study with a consensus definition made by experts from seven countries. Participants reviewed items of the revised HBS on a 5-point Likert scale. A content validity index (CVI) was calculated, and agreement was defined as a 70% CVI. Study included experts from seven European countries. Of these, 18 were prehospital expert panellists and 11 were in-hospital commentary board members.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The first Delphi round resulted in 1248 intervention examples divided into ten diagnostic categories. After removing overlapping examples, 413 interventions were included in the second Delphi round, which resulted in 38 examples divided into HBS categories 3-8. In the third Delphi round, these resulted in 37 prehospital interventions, examples of which were given revised version of the score. In the fourth and final Delphi round, the expert panel was given an opportunity to accept or comment on the revised scoring system.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The former HBS was revised by a Delphi methodology and EBS developed to represent its structural purpose better. The EBS includes 37 exemplar prehospital interventions to guide its clinical use. Trial registration The study permission was requested and granted by Turku University Hospital (decision number TP2/010/18).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8520267/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00966-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00966-3","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

背景:直升机紧急服务(HEMS)效益评分(HBS)是一个9级评分系统,用于评估HEMS任务的效益。哈佛商学院的原始形式已经在临床应用了20年。然而,院前护理的进步已经产生了对HBS修订的需求。因此,我们在原HBS的基础上开发了急诊医疗服务(EMS)福利评分(EBS)。正如它的名字所反映的那样,EBS的目的是衡量整个EMS系统对患者产生的好处。方法:这是一个四轮、基于网络的国际德尔菲共识研究,由七个国家的专家共同定义。参与者以5分李克特量表评估修订后哈佛商学院的项目。计算内容效度指数(CVI),并将70%的CVI定义为一致性。研究人员包括来自七个欧洲国家的专家。其中18人是院前专家小组成员,11人是院内评论委员会成员。结果:第一轮德尔菲调查得出1248个干预实例,分为10个诊断类别。在去除重叠的例子后,第二次德尔菲轮纳入了413个干预措施,这导致38个例子被划分为HBS类别3-8。在第三个德尔菲轮,这些导致37院前干预,其中的例子给出了修订版本的分数。在第四轮也是最后一轮德尔菲中,专家小组有机会接受或评论修订后的评分系统。结论:采用德尔菲方法对前HBS进行了修订,并开发了EBS,以更好地代表其结构目的。EBS包括37个院前干预范例,以指导其临床使用。研究许可由图尔库大学医院申请并批准(决定号TP2/010/18)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The development of emergency medical services benefit score: a European Delphi study.

The development of emergency medical services benefit score: a European Delphi study.

Background: The helicopter emergency services (HEMS) Benefit Score (HBS) is a nine-level scoring system developed to evaluate the benefits of HEMS missions. The HBS has been in clinical use for two decades in its original form. Advances in prehospital care, however, have produced demand for a revision of the HBS. Therefore, we developed the emergency medical services (EMS) Benefit Score (EBS) based on the former HBS. As reflected by its name, the aim of the EBS is to measure the benefits produced by the whole EMS systems to patients.

Methods: This is a four-round, web-based, international Delphi consensus study with a consensus definition made by experts from seven countries. Participants reviewed items of the revised HBS on a 5-point Likert scale. A content validity index (CVI) was calculated, and agreement was defined as a 70% CVI. Study included experts from seven European countries. Of these, 18 were prehospital expert panellists and 11 were in-hospital commentary board members.

Results: The first Delphi round resulted in 1248 intervention examples divided into ten diagnostic categories. After removing overlapping examples, 413 interventions were included in the second Delphi round, which resulted in 38 examples divided into HBS categories 3-8. In the third Delphi round, these resulted in 37 prehospital interventions, examples of which were given revised version of the score. In the fourth and final Delphi round, the expert panel was given an opportunity to accept or comment on the revised scoring system.

Conclusions: The former HBS was revised by a Delphi methodology and EBS developed to represent its structural purpose better. The EBS includes 37 exemplar prehospital interventions to guide its clinical use. Trial registration The study permission was requested and granted by Turku University Hospital (decision number TP2/010/18).

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