Testing quality indicators and proposing benchmarks for physician-staffed emergency medical services: a prospective Nordic multicentre study. Issue 11 (3rd November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Haugland, Helge; Olkinuora, Anna; Rognås, Leif; Ohlen, David; Krüger, Andreas
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 9:Issue 11(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-11-03
• Subjects: quality in health care -- accident & emergency medicine -- anaesthetics; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030626
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: A consensus study from 2017 developed 15 response-specific quality indicators (QIs) for physician-staffed emergency medical services (P-EMS). The aim of this study was to test these QIs for important characteristics in a real clinical setting. These characteristics were feasibility, rankability, variability, actionability and documentation. We further aimed to propose benchmarks for future quality measurements in P-EMS. Design: In this prospective observational study, physician-staffed helicopter emergency services registered data for the 15 QIs. The feasibility of the QIs was assessed based on the comments of the recording physicians. The other four QI characteristics were assessed by the authors. Benchmarks were proposed based on the quartiles in the dataset. Setting: Nordic physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical services. Participants: 16 physician-staffed helicopter emergency services in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. Results: The dataset consists of 5638 requests to the participating P-EMSs. There were 2814 requests resulting in completed responses with patient contact. All QIs were feasible to obtain. The variability of 14 out of 15 QIs was adequate. Rankability was adequate for all QIs. Actionability was assessed as being adequate for 10 QIs. Documentation was adequate for 14 QIs. Benchmarks for all QIs were proposed. Conclusions: All 15 QIs seem possible to use in everyday quality measurement and improvement. However, it seems reasonable to not analyse the QI 'Adverse Events' with a strictly quantitative approach because of a low rate of adverse events. Rather, this QI should be used to identify adverse events so that they can be analysed as sentinel events. The actionability of the QIs 'Able to respond immediately when alarmed', 'Time to arrival of P-EMS', 'Time to preferred destination', 'Provision of advanced treatment' and 'Significant logistical contribution' was assessed as being poor. Benchmarks for the QIs and a total quality score are proposed for future quality measurements.