• How do people with dementia use the ambulance service? A retrospective study in England: the HOMEWARD project

      Voss, Sarah; Brandling, Janet; Taylor, Hazel; Black, Sarah; Buswell, Marina; Cheston, Richard; Cullum, Sarah; Foster, Theresa; Kirby, Kim; Prothero, Larissa; et al. (2018-08)
      https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/7/e022549 Objectives An increasing number of older people are calling ambulances and presenting to accident and emergency departments. The presence of comorbidities and dementia can make managing these patients more challenging and hospital admission more likely, resulting in poorer outcomes for patients. However, we do not know how many of these patients are conveyed to hospital by ambulance. This study aims to determine: how often ambulances are called to older people; how often comorbidities including dementia are recorded; the reason for the call; provisional diagnosis; the amount of time ambulance clinicians spend on scene; the frequency with which these patients are transported to hospital. Methods We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of ambulance patient care records (PCRs) from calls to patients aged 65 years and over. Data were collected from two ambulance services in England during 24 or 48 hours periods in January 2017 and July 2017. The records were examined by two researchers using a standard template and the data were extracted from 3037 PCRs using a coding structure. Results Results were reported as percentages and means with 95% CIs. Dementia was recorded in 421 (13.9%) of PCRs. Patients with dementia were significantly less likely to be conveyed to hospital following an emergency call than those without dementia. The call cycle times were similar for patients regardless of whether or not they had dementia. Calls to people with dementia were more likely to be due to injury following a fall. In the overall sample, one or more comorbidities were reported on the PCR in over 80% of cases. Conclusion Rates of hospital conveyance for older people may be related to comorbidities, frailty and complex needs, rather than dementia. Further research is needed to understand the way in which ambulance clinicians make conveyance decisions at scene. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6074617/pdf/bmjopen-2018-022549.pdf 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-2018-022549
    • Public and patient involvement in prehospital care research development – designing the rapid 2 trial

      Evans, Bridie A.; Bulger, Jenna; Ford, S.; Foster, Theresa; Goodacre, Steve; Jones, S.; Keen, L.; Longo, M.; Lyons, Ronan; Pallister, I.; et al. (2019-04-26)
      Background Involving patients and public members in research helps ensure evidence is relevant, accountable and high quality. Public and patient involvement (PPI) is required in many funding applications. We aimed to involve public contributors in designing a research bid about prehospital management for hip fracture. Method We recruited two public contributors with experience of hip fracture and prehospital care to our research team of academic, clinical and managerial partners developing the RAPID 2 proposal evaluating paramedic administration of Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block, a local anesthetic injection into the hip. We supported them to consult with a public/patient group and identify patient priorities to inform our decisions. We held research development meetings and shared project drafts to gain views, share decisions and amend documents. Results Consultation responses suggested patient priorities after hip fracture were to return home, recover mobility and gain independence. These views guided our decisions on setting primary outcomes which were length-of-hospital-stay and health-related quality-of-life. Their concern about the study design causing delayed access to treatment meant we decided to identify common exclusion criteria before randomisation to expedite access to pain management and reduce attrition. Public contributors also agreed patients should be offered an incentive for completing and returning questionnaires to enhance data completeness. Conclusion Involving public contributors enabled the research team to identify patient-prioritised outcomes and adjust the proposed study design to reflect these in the proposal. Public contributors will remain involved if funding is awarded to ensure patient perspectives inform all stages of research management and dissemination. Conflict of interest None. Funding PRIME Centre Wales. 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, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/., https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/Suppl_2/A8.2 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/ DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-EMS.22