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.
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.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of training for the Emergency Management of Severe Burns (EMSB) for medical and nursing staff working in emergency care as measured by their performance in a simulated burn incident online program.METHODS: An Internet-based questionnaire, which included a simulated burn incident, was developed. All of the medical and nursing staff in hospital emergency departments and ambulance services in the Netherlands were invited to complete this questionnaire. The effect of EMSB training on the individual's knowledge of and performance in the emergency management of a burn victim was evaluated because some of the respondents had participated in EMSB training, whereas others had not.RESULTS: Of the 280 responses received, 198 questionnaires were included in the analysis. The analyzed questionnaires were submitted by nurses (43%), ambulance workers (33%), and physicians (23%). Only 14% of the people in the study had participated in EMSB training, whereas 78% had received other or additional life support training and 22% of respondents had no additional life support training. Medical and nursing staff who had participated in EMSB training performed better in the following subjects: mentioning hypothermia as a focus of attention (70% versus 53%, p=0.085), correct use of hand size (70% versus 36%, p=0.001) and use of the correct hand percentage in the estimation of total body surface area (TBSA, 82% versus 57%, p=0.015), suspicion of no airway obstruction in an outdoor trauma (93% versus 63%, p = 0.002) and referral of functional area burns to a burn center (22% versus 8%, p = 0.04). However, both groups overestimated the TBSA (34% of the total group overestimated ≥ 20%) and did not know the correct formula for fluid resuscitation (87% of the total group).CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that medical staff members who have participated in EMSB training have a better knowledge of emergency management and are more effective in the management of a simulated burn case. However, both individuals who had participated in EMSB as well as those who had not participated in EMSB needed additional training in EMSB.
