The Library

Computer assisted assessment and advice for "non-serious" 999 ambulance service callers : the potential impact on ambulance despatch

Tools

Dale, Jeremy, Higgins, J., Williams, S., Foster, T., Snooks, Helen, Crouch, R., Hartley-Sharpe, C., Glucksman, E., Hooper, R. and George, S.. (2003) Computer assisted assessment and advice for "non-serious" 999 ambulance service callers : the potential impact on ambulance despatch. Emergency Medicine Journal, Vol.20 (No.2). pp. 178-183. ISSN 1472-0205

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Dale_Computer_Assisted_assessment.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (192Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emj.20.2.178

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the potential impact for ambulance services of telephone assessment and
triage for callers who present with non-serious problems (Category C calls) as classified by ambulance
service call takers.
Design: Pragmatic controlled trial. Calls identified using priority dispatch protocols as non-serious
were allocated to intervention and control groups according to time of call. Ambulance dispatch
occurred according to existing procedures. During intervention sessions, nurses or paramedics within
the control room used a computerised decision support system to provide telephone assessment, triage
and, if appropriate, offer advice to permit estimation of the potential impact on ambulance dispatch.
Setting: Ambulance services in London and the West Midlands.
Subjects: Patients for whom emergency calls were made to the ambulance services between April
1998 and May 1999 during four hour sessions sampled across all days of the week between 0700
and 2300.
Main outcome measures: Triage decision, ambulance cancellation, attendance at an emergency
department.
Results: In total, there were 635 intervention calls and 611 controls. Of those in the intervention group,
330 (52.0%) were triaged as not requiring an emergency ambulance, and 119 (36.6%) of these did
not attend an emergency department. This compares with 55 (18.1%) of those triaged by a nurse or
paramedic as requiring an ambulance (odds ratio 2.62; 95% CI 1.78 to 3.85). Patients triaged as not
requiring an emergency ambulance were less likely to be admitted to an inpatient bed (odds ratio
0.55; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.93), but even so 30 (9.2%) were admitted. Nurses were more likely than
paramedics to triage calls into the groups classified as not requiring an ambulance. After controlling
for age, case mix, time of day, day of week, season, and ambulance service, the results of a logistic
regression analysis revealed that this difference was significant with an odds ratio for nurses:paramedics
of 1.28 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.47).
Conclusions: The findings indicate that telephone assessment of Category C calls identifies patients
who are less likely to require emergency department care and that this could have a significant impact
on emergency ambulance dispatch rates. Nurses were more likely than paramedics to assess calls as
requiring an alternative response to emergency ambulance despatch, but the extent to which this relates
to aspects of training and professional perspective is unclear. However, consideration should be given
to the acceptability, reliability, and cost consequences of this intervention before it can be
recommended for full evaluation.

Item Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine

Divisions:

Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Telephone in medicine, Triage (Medicine) -- Great Britain, Ambulance service -- Great Britain, Emergency medicine -- Decision making -- Computer programs

Journal or Publication Title:

Emergency Medicine Journal

Publisher:

BMJ Group

ISSN:

1472-0205

Official Date:

2003

Dates:

Date	Event
2003	Published

Volume:

Vol.20

Number:

No.2

Page Range:

pp. 178-183

Identification Number:

10.1136/emj.20.2.178

Status:

Peer Reviewed

Access rights to Published version:

Open Access

Funder:

NHS Executive. Research and Development Directorate

References:

1 Richards JR, Ferrall SJ. Inappropriate use of emergency medical services
transport: comparison of provider and patient perspectives. Acad Emerg
Med 1999;6:14–20.
2 Palazzo FF, Warner OJ, Harron M, et al. Misuse of the London
ambulance service: how much and why? J Accid Emerg Med
1998;15:368–70.
3 Little GF, Barton D. Inappropriate use of the ambulance service. Eur J
Emerg Med 1998;5:307–11.
4 Holm O, Berlac PA, Jensen PK, et al. Relevance of the 112-emergency
calls among the clientele of the emergency department of the Herlev
hospital admitting office. Ugeskr Laeger 1997;159:1749–51.
5 Chen JC, Bullard MJ, Liaw SJ. Ambulance use, misuse, and unmet needs
in a developing emergency medical services system. Eur J Emerg Med
1996;3:73–8.
6 Billitier A, Moscati R, Janicke D, et al. A multi-site survey of factors
contributing to medically unnecessary ambulance transports. Acad Emerg
Med 1996;3:1046–52.
7 McLeay GF, Hamilton D, Bowie P. Emergency ambulance service: an
accident and emergency audit. Medical Audit News 1995;5:137–8.
8 Brown E, Sindelar J. The emergent problem of ambulance misuse. Ann
Emerg Med 1993;22:646–9.
9 Pennycook AG, Makeower RM, Morrison WG. Use of the emergency
ambulance service to an inner city accident and emergency
department—a comparison of general practitioner and ‘999’ calls. J R
Soc Med 1991;84:726–7.
10 Gardner GJ. The use and abuse of the emergency ambulance service:
some of the factors affecting the decision whether to call an emergency
ambulance. Arch Emerg Med 1990;7:81–9.
11 Kongelf E, Lereim I, Hald K. Requests for ambulances for patients with
acute diseases and injuries. Are ambulance services abused? Tidsskr Nor
Laegeforen 1989;109:3447–51.
12 O’Leary C, Bury G, McCabe M, et al. Ambulance-user analysis in an
accident and emergency department. Ir Med J 1987;80:422–3.
13 Rademaker AW, Powell DG, Read JH. Inappropriate use and unmet
need in paramedic and nonparamedic ambulance systems. Ann Emerg
Med 1987;16:553–6.
14 Morris DL, Cross AB. Is the emergency ambulance service abused? BMJ
1980;3:121–3.
15 Gibson G. Measures of emergency ambulance effectiveness: unmet need
and inappropriate use. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians 1977;6:389–92.
16 Audit Commission. A life in the fast lane: value for money in
emergency ambulance services. London: Belmont Press, 1998.
17 Cooke MW, Morrell R, Wilson S, et al. Does criteria-based dispatch of
999 calls adequately detect the critically ill and injured? Prehospital
Immediate Care 1999;3:191–5.
18 Lattimer V, George S, Thompson F, et al. The South Wiltshire Out of
Hours Project (SWOOP) Group). Safety and effectiveness of nurse
telephone consultation in out of hours primary care: randomised
controlled trial. BMJ 1998;317:1054–9.
19 Crouch R, Dale J, Patel A, et al. Ringing the changes: developing,
piloting and evaluating a telephone advice system in accident and
emergency department and general practice settings. London: King’s
College School of Medicine and Dentistry: Department of General
Practice and Primary Care, 1996.