• Preventable mortality in patients at low risk of death requiring prehospital ambulance care: retrospective case record review study

      Siriwardena, Aloysius; Akanuwe, Joseph; Crum, Annabel; Coster, Joanne; Jacques, Richard; Turner, Janette (2018-04)
      Aim Retrospective case record reviews (RCRR) have been widely used to assess quality of care but evidence for their use in prehospital ambulance settings is limited. We aimed to review case records of potentially avoidable deaths related to ambulance care. Method We identified patients who were transported to hospital or died using linked ambulance-hospital-mortality data from one UK ambulance service over 6 months in 2013. Death rates (within 3 days) for patient groups (based on age, dispatch code and urgency) were determined; 3 patients calling in-hours and 3 outof-hours were selected from categories with the lowest death rates. Five reviewers (GP, nurse, 2 paramedics and medical health service manager) assessed anonymised patient records for quality of care and avoidable mortality. Results We selected 29 linked records from 1 50 003 focussing on patients not transported to distinguish pre-hospital from Abstracts BMJ Open 2018;8(Suppl 1):A1–A34 A7 Trust (NHS). Protected by copyright. on 13 August 2019 at Manchester University NHS Foundation http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-EMS.20 on 16 April 2018. Downloaded from hospital causes. Overall 8 cases out of 29 (27.6%) scored between 2.4 and 2.8 (1=Definitely avoidable, 2=Strong evidence of avoidability), 8 cases (27.6%) scored between 3.0 and 4.6 (3=Probably avoidable, 4=Possibly avoidable), and the remaining 13 cases (44.8%) between 4.0 and 5.8 (5=Slightly avoidable or 6=Definitely not avoidable). Variation between raters was satisfactory with ICC 0.84 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.92). Common themes among cases with strong evidence of avoidability were symptoms or physical findings indicating a potentially serious condition and refusal by patients or their carers to be transported to hospital. RCRRs require linked ambulance, hospital and mortality data to ensure accurate assessment in light of the diagnosis and cause of death. Conclusion Retrospective case record reviews (RCRR) have been widely used to assess quality of care but evidence for their use in prehospital ambulance settings is limited. We aimed to review case records of potentially avoidable deaths related to ambulance care. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/Suppl_1/A7.3 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-EMS.20
    • Reliability and validity of an ambulance patient reported experience measure (a-prem): pilot study

      Siriwardena, Aloysius; Togher, Fiona Jayne; Akanuwe, Joseph; Spaight, Anne (2017-10)
      Background There are no prehospital ambulance Patient Reported Experience Measures (A-PREMs) routinely used to support service comparisons and improvement. We developed an A-PREM, generating items through secondary analysis of ambulance patient interview data, and refining the instrument using expert assessment and cognitive interviews of service users. We aimed to pilot the A-PREM (48 experience and 12 attribute items) investigating user acceptability, reliability and construct validity. Methods Ambulance users attended by a UK regional ambulance service within the previous six months, excluding those suffering cardiac arrest, were sent a self-administered A-PREM. Returned questionnaires were entered into Microsoft Excel and imported into SPSS v22 for analysis. Experience items were recoded to range from 0 (don’t know/can’t remember) to 3 (best recorded experience). Descriptive analysis for item frequencies and missing values, reliability analyses for potential scales and tests of correlation and association were conducted. Results In all, 111 A-PREMs (22.2%) were returned. Missing data were highest for call-taking items. There was a significant association with a shorter wait for first response for four items measuring overall experience of call-taking (χ, p=0.05), ambulance staff (p<0.001), ambulance overall (p=0.001) and A and E (p=0.023). Four separate experience scales encompassing call taking (AmbCallScore, α=0.91), care at scene (AmbCareScore, α=0.90), care on leaving the patient (AmbLeaveScore, α=0.69), and care on transport (AmbTranScore α=0.71), showed satisfactory to high internal consistencies and distributions indicating generally positive experiences. AmbCallScore, AmbCareScore and AmbLeaveScore showed significantly higher scores (ANOVA) with shorter wait to first response. There were no significant differences for overall measures or scales by sex or age of participant, whether they were transported to hospital or not and whether it was their first experience of the ambulance service. Conclusion Our findings show that the A-PREM should be tested more widely for evidence of reliability, validity and sensitivity to different care and settings. https://emj.bmj.com/content/34/10/e6.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2017-207114.17