In 2016, a selective preventive spinal immobilization protocol for emergency medical service (EMS) nurses was introduced in the Netherlands. This protocol leaves more room for autonomous decision-making in the pre-hospital phase regarding preventive spinal immobilization (PSI), compared to the previous strict protocol. In this study, we explored the experiences and perspectives of EMS nurses on decision making about PSI after the change from a strict to a selective PSI protocol. Methods: We used a qualitative design with semi structured face-to-face interviews. Thematic analysis was applied. The capability-opportunity-motivation behavior-model was used to interpret the experiences and perspectives. Results: Thirteen EMS nurses from three emergency medical services were interviewed. Respondents appreciated autonomous decision-making as there was more room for patient-centered informed decision-making. However, autonomous decision-making required optimized knowledge and skills and elicited the need to receive feedback on their decision not to apply PSI. When nurses anticipated resistance to selective PSI from receiving hospitals, they were doubtful to apply it. Conclusion: Nurses appreciate the increased autonomy in decision-making, encouraging them to focus on patient-centered care. Increased autonomy also places higher demands on knowledge and skills, calling for training and feedback. Anticipated resistance to receiving hospitals based on mutual protocol discrepancies could lead to PSI application by EMS nurses while not deemed necessary. Recommendations: To enhance PSI procedures, optimizing the knowledge and skills of EMS nurses that facilitate on-scene decision-making may be indicated. A learning loop for feedback between the EMS nurses and the involved hospitals may add to their professional performance. More efforts are needed to create support for the changed Emergency Medical Services strategy in PSI to prevent unnecessary PSI and practice variation.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning is a crucial task within the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) care process. Both contextual and cognitive factors make the task susceptible to errors. Understanding the EMS care process' structure could help identify and address issues that interfere with clinical reasoning. The EMS care process is complex and only basically described. In this research, we aimed to define the different phases of the process and develop an overarching model that can help detect and correct potential error sources, improve clinical reasoning and optimize patient care.METHODS: We conducted a focused ethnography study utilizing non-participant video observations of real-life EMS deployments combined with thematic analysis of peer interviews. After an initial qualitative analysis of 7 video observations, we formulated a tentative conceptual model of the EMS care process. To test and refine this model, we carried out a qualitative, thematic analysis of 28 video-recorded cases. We validated the resulting model by evaluating its recognizability with a peer content analysis utilizing semi-structured interviews.RESULTS: Based on real-life observations, we were able to define and validate a model covering the distinct phases of an EMS deployment. We have introduced the acronym "SPART" to describe ten different phases: Start, Situation, Prologue, Presentation, Anamnesis, Assessment, Reasoning, Resolution, Treatment, and Transfer.CONCLUSIONS: The "SPART" model describes the EMS care process and helps to understand it. We expect it to facilitate identifying and addressing factors that influence both the care process and the clinical reasoning task embedded in this process.
DOCUMENT
Introduction: Retrospective studies suggest that a rapid initiation of treatment results in a better prognosis for patients in the emergency department. There could be a difference between the actual medication administration time and the documented time in the electronic health record. In this study, the difference between the observed medication administration time and documentation time was investigated. Patient and nurse characteristics were also tested for associations with observed time differences. Methods: In this prospective study, emergency nurses were followed by observers for a total of 3 months. Patient inclusion was divided over 2 time periods. The difference in the observed medication administration time and the corresponding electronic health record documentation time was measured. The association between patient/nurse characteristics and the difference in medication administration and documentation time was tested with a Spearman correlation or biserial correlation test. Results: In 34 observed patients, the median difference in administration and documentation time was 6.0 minutes (interquartile range 2.0-16.0). In 9 (26.5%) patients, the actual time of medication administration differed more than 15 minutes with the electronic health record documentation time. High temperature, lower saturation, oxygen-dependency, and high Modified Early Warning Score were all correlated with an increasing difference between administration and documentation times. Discussion: A difference between administration and documentation times of medication in the emergency department may be common, especially for more acute patients. This could bias, in part, previously reported time-to-treatment measurements from retrospective research designs, which should be kept in mind when outcomes of retrospective time-to-treatment studies are evaluated.
DOCUMENT
