Selecting cases for feedback to pre-hospital clinicians – a pilot study
Lisa Brichko A I , Paul Jennings A B C , Christopher Bain D E , Karen Smith C F G and Biswadev Mitra A F HA Emergency & Trauma Centre, Alfred Hospital, 55 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004, Australia.
B Department of Community Emergency Health and Paramedic Practice, Monash University, Building H, McMahons Road, Frankston, Vic. 3199, Australia. Email: paul.jennings@monash.edu
C Ambulance Victoria, 31 Joseph Street, Blackburn North, Vic. 3130, Australia. Email: karen.smith@ambulance.vic.gov.au
D Applications and Knowledge Management Department, Alfred Hospital, 55 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004, Australia. Email: Christopher.Bain-Info@alfred.org.au
E Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Building 72, Wellington Road, Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia.
F Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, The Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004, Australia. Email: biswadev.mitra@monash.edu
G Discipline Emergency Medicine, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, University of Western Australia, WA 6009, Australia.
H National Trauma Research Institute, Alfred Hospital, Level 4, 89 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004, Australia.
I Corresponding author. Email: L.Brichko@alfred.org.au
Australian Health Review 40(3) 306-310 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH15079
Submitted: 8 May 2015 Accepted: 17 July 2015 Published: 5 October 2015
Abstract
Background There are currently limited avenues for routine feedback from hospitals to pre-hospital clinicians aimed at improvements in clinical practice.
Objective The aim of this study was to pilot a method for selectively identifying cases where there was a clinically significant difference between the pre-hospital and in-hospital diagnoses that could have led to a difference in pre-hospital patient care.
Methods This was a single-centre retrospective study involving cases randomly selected through informatics extraction of final diagnoses at hospital discharge. Additional data on demographics, triage and diagnoses were extracted by explicit chart review. Blinded groups of pre-hospital and in-hospital clinicians assessed data to detect clinically significant differences between pre-hospital and in-hospital diagnoses.
Results Most (96.9%) patients were of Australasian Triage Scale category 1–3 and in-hospital mortality rate was 32.9%. Of 353 cases, 32 (9.1%; 95% CI: 6.1–12.1) were determined by both groups of clinical assessors to have a clinically significant difference between the pre-hospital and final in-hospital diagnoses, with moderate inter-rater reliability (kappa score 0.6, 95% CI: 0.5–0.7).
Conclusion A modest proportion of cases demonstrated discordance between the pre-hospital and in-hospital diagnoses. Selective case identification and feedback to pre-hospital services using a combination of informatics extraction and clinician consensus approach can be used to promote ongoing improvements to pre-hospital patient care.
What is known about the topic? Highly trained pre-hospital clinicians perform patient assessments and early interventions while transporting patients to healthcare facilities for ongoing management. Feedback is necessary to allow for continual improvements; however, the provision of formal selective feedback regarding diagnostic accuracy from hospitals to pre-hospital clinicians is currently not routine.
What does this paper add? For a significant proportion of patients, there is a clinically important difference in the diagnosis recorded by their pre-hospital clinician compared with their final in-hospital diagnosis. These clinically significant differences in diagnoses between pre-hospital and in-hospital clinicians were most notable among acute myocardial infarction and trauma subgroups of patients in this study.
What are the implications for practitioners? Identification of patients who have a significant discrepancy between their pre-hospital and in-hospital diagnoses could lead to the development of feedback mechanisms to pre-hospital clinicians. Providing pre-hospital clinicians with this selective feedback would be intended to promote ongoing improvements in pre-hospital assessments and thereby to improve service delivery.
Additional keywords: diagnosis, emergency medical services, feedback, paramedic, pre-hospital care, quality of healthcare.
References
[1] Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, O’Brien MA, Johansen M, Grimshaw J, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 6 CD000259| 22696318PubMed |
[2] Van Der Veer SN, de Keizer NF, Ravelli ACJ, Tenkink S, Jager KJ. Improving quality of care. A systematic review on how medical registries provide information feedback to health care providers. Int J Med Inform 2010; 79 305–23.
| Improving quality of care. A systematic review on how medical registries provide information feedback to health care providers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20189451PubMed |
[3] Bienstock JL, Katz NT, Cox SM, Hueppchen N, Erickson S, Puscheck EE, Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics Undergraduate Medical Education Committee To the point: medical education reviews–providing feedback. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196 508–13.
| To the point: medical education reviews–providing feedback.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17547874PubMed |
[4] Lindstrom V, Karlsten R, Falk A-C, Castren M. Feasibility of a computer-assisted feedback system between dispatch centre and ambulances. Eur J Emerg Med 2011; 18 143–7.
| 21346582PubMed |
[5] Lilford R, Mohammed MA, Spiegelhalter D, Thomson R. Use and misuse of process and outcome data in managing performance of acute medical care: avoiding institutional stigma. Lancet 2004; 363 1147–54.
| Use and misuse of process and outcome data in managing performance of acute medical care: avoiding institutional stigma.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15064036PubMed |
[6] Stella J, Davis A, Jennings P, Bartley B. Introduction of a prehospital critical incident monitoring system–pilot project results. Prehosp Disaster Med 2008; 23 154–60.
| 18557295PubMed |
[7] Victorian Department of Health. Trauma case review group – terms of reference and membership. Melbourne, Vic.; 2013. Available at: www.health.vic.gov.au/trauma/publications.htm [verified 25 February 2015].
[8] Bain C, MacManus C. Advancing data management and usage in a major Australian health service: the REASON discovery platform™. Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Data Science & Engineering (ICDSE); 26–28 August 2014; Kochi, Indi. IEEE; 2014.
[9] Cummins NM, Dixon M, Garavan C, Landymore E, Mulligan N, O’Donnell C. Can advanced paramedics in the field diagnose patients and predict hospital admission? Emerg Med J 2013; 30 1043–7.
| Can advanced paramedics in the field diagnose patients and predict hospital admission?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23407377PubMed |
[10] Kothari R, Barsan W, Brott T, Broderick J, Ashbrock S. Frequency and accuracy of prehospital diagnosis of acute stroke. Stroke 1995; 26 937–41.
| Frequency and accuracy of prehospital diagnosis of acute stroke.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK2M3ot1aiug%3D%3D&md5=85466cc0efdc4bb5da055c15d4af6f7dCAS | 7762041PubMed |
[11] Bray JE, Coughlan K, Barger B, Bladin C. Paramedic diagnosis of stroke examining long-term use of the Melbourne Ambulance Stroke Screen (MASS) in the field. Stroke 2010; 41 1363–6.
| Paramedic diagnosis of stroke examining long-term use of the Melbourne Ambulance Stroke Screen (MASS) in the field.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20538702PubMed |
[12] Hasler RM, Kehl C, Exadaktylos AK, Albrecht R, Dubler S, Greif R, Urwyler N. Accuracy of prehospital diagnosis and triage of a Swiss helicopter emergency medical service. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012; 73 709–15.
| Accuracy of prehospital diagnosis and triage of a Swiss helicopter emergency medical service.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22929499PubMed |
[13] Mulholland SA, Cameron PA, Gabbe BJ, Williamson OD, Young K, Smith KL, Bernard SA. Prehospital prediction of the severity of blunt anatomic injury. J Trauma 2008; 64 754–60.
| Prehospital prediction of the severity of blunt anatomic injury.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18332820PubMed |
[14] Choi B, Tsai D, McGillivray CG, Amedee C, Sarafin J-A, Silver B. Hospital-directed feedback to Emergency Medical Services improves prehospital performance. Stroke 2014; 45 2137–40.
| Hospital-directed feedback to Emergency Medical Services improves prehospital performance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24876080PubMed |
