Organization of prehospital care in the Netherlands: a perspective article

Characteristics and outcomes of emergency department patients across health care systems: an international multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

A wide variation of emergency medical system configurations across countries has limited the value of comparison of quality and performance measures in the past. Furthermore, lack of quantitative data on EDs prevents definition of the problems and possibilities for data driven improvement of quality of care. Therefore, the objective is to describe and compare Emergency Department (ED) populations and characteristics, and their outcomes in the Netherlands, Denmark and Australia, using a recently developed template for uniform reporting of standardized measuring and describing of care provided in the ED (structure, staffing and governance, population, process times and outcomes).

METHODS

This international multicenter cohort included all consecutive ED visits from National Quality Registries or Databases from participating sites from three countries. Patient and ED characteristics (using the template for uniform reporting) and relevant clinical outcomes were described and compared per country.

RESULTS

We included 212,515 ED visits in the Netherlands, 408,673 in Denmark and 556,652 in Australia. Patient characteristics differed markedly, with Australian ED patients being younger, less often triaged as "immediate", and less often triaged with the high-risk chief complaints "feeling unwell" compared to Danish and Dutch patients. ED characteristics mainly differed with respect to the mean annual census per ED (Netherlands 26,738 (SD 2630), Denmark 36,675 (SD 12974), Australia 50,712 (4884)), median (IQR) lengths of stay of patients discharged home (Netherlands 2.1 (1.4-3.1); Denmark 2.8 (1.7-5.0); Australia 3.3 (2.0-5.0) hrs) and proportion of hospitalizations (ranging from 30.6 to 39.8%). In-hospital mortality was 4.0% in Australia, higher compared to the Netherlands and Denmark (both 1.6%). Not all indicators of the framework were available in all registries.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient and ED characteristics and outcomes varied largely across countries. Meaningful interpretation of outcome differences across countries could be improved if quality registries would more consistently register the measures of the recently developed template for uniform reporting.

Prehospital analgesia in suspected hip fracture patients: adherence to national prehospital pain management guidelines

PURPOSE

Patients with hip fractures frequently present at the emergency department (ED). Despite high pain scores, prehospital pain management is often inadequate and insufficient. In the Netherlands, the emergency medical services (EMS) exhibit a high level of training, supported by a comprehensive pain treatment protocol. This study aimed to assess adherence to the protocol and hypothesized that prehospital pain management in hip fracture patients was both sufficient and adequate.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with suspected hip fractures. The median differences in numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores between the initial score in the ambulance and upon arrival at the ED were compared. Furthermore, adherence to the ambulance pain protocol was studied.

RESULTS

From September 2016 to March 2021, 436 ambulance-transported hip fracture patients were included, of whom 81% received analgesics by EMS. The median initial pain score measured by EMS was 8; this number decreased to 5 at ED presentation, a significant decrease (ρ < 0.001). In case a prehospital NRS pain score was assessed, 66.5% of the patients were treated according to the protocol. In 80% of patients, the protocol was not followed correctly, primarily due to missing NRS pain scores.

CONCLUSION

In suspected hip fracture patients, initial prehospital pain scores were high and most patients received analgesics from EMS. This resulted in a significant decrease in pain. In nearly 67% of patients in whom an NRS pain score was assessed in the prehospital phase, pain management was according to protocol. However, in 80% of the total population the pain protocol was not adhered to, mainly due to missing NRS pain scores.

Opportunities and barriers for prehospital emergency medical services research in the Netherlands; results of a mixed-methods consensus study

INTRODUCTION

Quality improvement in prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) can only be achieved by high-quality research and critical appraisal of current practices. This study examines current opportunities and barriers in EMS research in the Netherlands.

METHODS

This mixed-methods consensus study consisted of three phases. The first phase consisted of semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders. Thematic analysis of qualitative data derived from these interviews was used to identify main themes, which were subsequently discussed in several online focus groups in the second phase. Output from these discussions was used to shape statements for an online Delphi consensus study among relevant stakeholders in EMS research. Consensus was met if 80% of respondents agreed or disagreed on a particular statement.

RESULTS

Forty-nine stakeholders participated in the study; qualitative thematic analysis of the interviews and focus group discussions identified four main themes: (1) data registration and data sharing, (2) laws and regulations, (3) financial aspects and funding, and (4) organization and culture. Qualitative data from the first two phases of the study were used to construct 33 statements for an online Delphi study. Consensus was reached on 21 (64%) statements. Eleven (52%) of these statements pertained to the storage and use of EMS patient data.

CONCLUSION

Barriers for prehospital EMS research in the Netherlands include issues regarding the use of patient data, privacy and legislation, funding and research culture in EMS organizations. Opportunities to increase scientific productivity in EMS research include the development of a national strategy for EMS data and the incorporation of EMS topics in research agendas of national medical professional associations.

A survey of the current nurse practitioner and physician assistant workforce in Dutch ambulance care

Background

Dutch ambulance service faces future challenges due to acute care development, patient changes, demographics, increased ambulance runs and regional differences. Ambulance Care Netherlands published a framework titled "Pilot physician assistant and nurse practitioner ambulance care". Within this framework, a role is proposed so that their qualifications can provide solutions to future challenges. Despite the introduction of nurse practitioners and physician assistants into Dutch ambulance care, little is known about the effects of this introduction or the tasks these professionals perform. Nevertheless, they are being called upon, even though it is not known whether their potential contribution to the desired outcome described in the framework.

Objective

This study aims to provide an overview of all nurse practitioners and physician assistants working in Dutch ambulance care and the tasks they perform.

Design

We used a cross-sectional exploratory study design. The nurse practitioners and physician assistants participated in a structured telephone survey.

Setting

Emergency ambulance services in the Netherlands.

Participants

A total of 56 respondents participated in a telephone survey.

Results

We found 53 nurse practitioners and 20 physician assistants working in Dutch ambulance care, 56 participated in the survey. Their performance of both direct care and indirect care tasks differed considerably. While some nurse practitioners and physician assistants were fully autonomous in-patient care, others were bound by regulations and restrictions.

Conclusions

We found large variations between respondents in direct and indirect care task, number of working hours, and the different positions within the different Emergency ambulance services in the Netherlands. As a result, the established framework cannot presently function but can provide sound guidance to different ambulance services in positioning their nurse practitioners or physician assistants.

Referral decisions based on a pre-hospital HEART score in suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: final results of the FamouS Triage study

AIMS

Although pre-hospital risk stratification of patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) by ambulance paramedics is feasible, it has not been investigated in daily practice whether referral decisions based on this risk stratification is safe and does not increase major adverse cardiac events (MACE). In Phase III of the FamouS Triage study, it was investigated whether referral decisions by ambulance paramedics based on a pre-hospital HEART score, is non-inferior to routine management.

METHODS AND RESULTS

FamouS Triage Phase III is a non-inferiority study, comparing the occurrence of MACE before (Phase II) and after (Phase III) implementation of referral decisions based on a pre-hospital HEART score. In Phase II, all patients were risk-stratified and referred to the hospital; in Phase III, low-risk patients (HEART score ≤ 3) were not referred. Primary endpoint was MACE (acute coronary syndrome, revascularization, or death) within 45 days. A total of 1236 patients were included. Mean age was 63 years, 43% were female, 700 patients were included in the second phase and 536 in the third phase in which 149 low-risk patients (28%) were not transferred to the hospital. Occurrence of 45 days MACE was 16.6% in Phase II and 15.7% in Phase III (P = 0.67). Percentage MACE in low-risk patients was 2.9% in Phase II and 1.3% in Phase III. After adjustments for differences in baseline variables, the hazard ratio of 45 days MACE in Phase III was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.63-1.25) as compared to Phase II.

CONCLUSION

Pre-hospital risk stratification of patients with suspected NSTE-ACS, avoiding hospitalization of a substantial number of low-risk patients, seems feasible and non-inferior to transferring all patients to the hospital.

The updated national research agenda 2021-2026 for prehospital emergency medical services in the Netherlands: a Delphi study

Background

In 2015, a national research agenda was established for Dutch prehospital EMS to underpin the evidence base of care delivery and inform policymakers and funders. The continuously increasing demand for ambulance care and the reorientation towards the role of EMS in recent years may have changed research priorities. Therefore, this study aimed to update the Dutch national EMS research agenda.

Methods

A three-round online Delphi survey was used to explore and discuss different viewpoints and to reach consensus on research priorities (i.e., themes and special interest groups, e.g. patient types who require specific research attention). A multidisciplinary expert panel (n = 62) was recruited in the field of prehospital EMS and delegates of relevant professional organizations and stakeholders participated. In round one, fifty-nine research themes and six special interest groups (derived from several resources) were rated on importance on a 5-point scale by the panel members. In round two, the panel selected their priority themes and special interest groups (yes/no), and those with a positive difference score were further assessed in round three. In this final round, appropriateness of the remaining themes and agreement within the panel was taken into account, following the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, which resulted in the final list of research priorities.

Results

The survey response per round varied between 94 and 100 percent. In round one, a reduction from 59 to 25 themes and the selection of three special interest groups was realized. Round two resulted in the prioritization of six themes and one special interest group ('Vulnerable elderly'). Round three showed an adequate level of agreement regarding all six themes: 'Registration and (digital) exchange of patient data in the chain of emergency care'; 'Mobile care consultation/Non conveyance'; 'Care coordination'; 'Cooperation with professional partners within the care domain'; 'Care differentiation' and 'Triage and urgency classification'.

Conclusions

The updated Dutch national EMS research agenda builds further on the previous version and introduces new EMS research priorities that correspond with the future challenges prehospital EMS care is faced with. This agenda will guide researchers, policymakers and funding bodies in prioritizing future research projects.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13049-021-00971-6.