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
Introduction: From the patient and staff perspective, care delivery for patients experiencing a mental health problem in ambulance and emergency department (ED) settings is challenging. There is no uniform and internationally accepted concept to reflect people with a mental health problem who require emergency care, be it for, or as a result of, a mental health or physical health problem. On initial presentation to the emergency service provider (ambulance or ED), the cause of their healthcare condition/s (mental health and/or physical health) is often initially unknown. Due to this (1) the prevalence and range of underlying causes (mental and/or physical) of the patients presenting condition is unknown; (2) misattribution of physical symptoms to a mental health problem can occur and (3) diagnosis and treatment of the initial somatic complaint and cause(s) of the mental/physical health problem may be hindered.This study will name and define a new concept: 'mental dysregulation' in the context of ambulance and ED settings. Methods and analysis: A Delphi study, informed by a rapid literature review, will be undertaken. For the literature review, a steering group (ie, persons with lived experience, ED and mental health clinicians, academics) will systematically search the literature to provide a working definition of the concept: mental dysregulation. Based on this review, statements will be generated regarding (1) the definition of the concept; (2) possible causes of mental dysregulation and (3) observable behaviours associated with mental dysregulation. These statements will be rated in three Delphi rounds to achieve consensus by an international expert panel (comprising persons with lived experience, clinicians and academics). Ethics and dissemination: This study has been approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht (reference number: 258-000-2023_Geurt van der Glind). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal publication(s), scientific conference(s) and to key stakeholders.
DOCUMENT
