Unterschiede zwischen Rettungsdiensteinsätzen mit und ohne Patiententransport

Ambulance deployment without transport: a retrospective difference analysis for the description of emergency interventions without patient transport in Bavaria

BACKGROUND

Not all patients who call the ambulance service are subsequently transported to hospital. In 2018, a quarter of deployments of an emergency ambulance in Bavaria were not followed by patient transport. This study describes factors that influence patient transport rates.

METHOD

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study based on data from all Integrated Dispatch Centres of the Free State of Bavaria in 2018. Included were ambulance deployments without emergency physician involvement, which were subdivided into ambulance deployments without transport and ambulance deployments with transport. The proportion of transported patients were determined for the primary reasons for deployment and for the different community types. On-scene time was compared for calls with and without patient transport. Differences were tested for statistical significance using Chi2 tests and the odds ratio was calculated to determine differences between groups.

RESULTS

Of 510,145 deployments, 147,621 (28.9%) could be classified as ambulance deployments without transport and 362,524 (71.1%) as ambulance deployments with transport.The lowest proportion of patients transported was found for activations where the fire brigade was involved ("fire alarm system" 0.6%, "fire with emergency medical services" 5.4%) and "personal emergency response system active alarm" (18.6%). The highest transport rates were observed for emergencies involving "childbirth/delivery" (96.9%) and "trauma" (83.2%). A lower proportion of patients is transported in large cities as compared to smaller cities or rural communities; in large cities, the odds ratio for emergencies without transport is 2.02 [95% confidence interval 1.98-2.06] referenced to rural communites. The median on-scene time for emergencies without transport was 20.8 min (n = 141,052) as compared to 16.5 min for emergencies with transport (n = 362,524). The shortest on-scene times for emergencies without transport were identified for activations related to "fire alarm system" (9.0 min) and "personal emergency response system active alarm" (10.6 min).

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that the proportion of patients transported depends on the reason for deployment and whether the emergency location is urban or rural. Particularly low transport rates are found if an ambulance was dispatched in connection with a fire department operation or a personal emergency medical alert button was activated. The on-scene-time of the rescue vehicle is increased for deployments without transport. The study could not provide a rationale for this and further research is needed. Trial registration This paper is part of the study "Rettungswageneinsatz ohne Transport" ["Ambulance deployment without transport"] (RoT), which was registered in the German Register of Clinical Studies under the number DRKS00017758.

Association between using a prehospital assessment unit and hospital admission and mortality: a matched cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare hospital admission and 30-day mortality between patients assessed by the prehospital assessment unit (PAU) and patients not assessed by the PAU.

DESIGN

This was a matched cohort study.

SETTING

This study was conducted between November 2021 and October 2022 in Region Zealand, Denmark.

PARTICIPANTS

989 patients aged >18, assessed by the PAU, were identified, and 9860 patients not assessed by the PAU were selected from the emergency calls using exposure density sampling.

EXPOSURE

Patients assessed by the PAU. The PAU is operated by paramedics with access to point-of-care test facilities. The PAU is an alternative response vehicle without the capability of transporting patients.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was hospital admission within 48 hours after the initial call. The key secondary outcomes were admission within 7 days, 30-day mortality and admission within 6 hours. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted, and logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted OR (aOR) and 95% CI.

RESULTS

Among the PAU assessed, 44.1% were admitted within 48 hours, compared with 72.9% of the non-PAU assessed, p<0.001. The multivariable analysis showed a lower risk of admission within 48 hours and 7 days among the PAU patients, aOR 0.31 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.38) and aOR 0.50 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.64), respectively. The 30-day mortality rate was 3.8% in the PAU-assessed patients vs 5.5% in the non-PAU-assessed patients, p=0.03. In the multivariable analysis, no significant difference was found in mortality aOR 0.99 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.42). No deaths were observed in PAU-assessed patients without subsequent follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The recently introduced PAU aims for patient-centred emergency care. The PAU-assessed patients had reduced admissions within 48 hours and 7 days after the initial call. Study findings indicate that the PAU is safe since we identified no significant differences in 30-day mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05654909.