Abstract

Background: Transition of care from Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to the Emergency Department (ED) represents an intersection at high risk for error. Minimal research has quantitatively examined data transfer at this point. In Pennsylvania, this handoff consists of a transfer-of-care form (TOC) provided by EMS to ED in addition to a verbal report. A prehospital patient care report (PCR) is later filed by EMS up to 72 hours after concluding care.Objective: To evaluate the congruence between prehospital records provided at handoff and the final PCR found in the patient’s medical record. Our hypothesis was that there would be discrepancies between the TOC and final PCR.Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted comparing the TOC from a single EMS agency to the final PCR found in the electronic medical record. A convenience sample of 200 patients who received advanced life support transport over a one-month period were included. Metrics to assess the discrepancy between the reports included chief complaint, allergies, medications, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), pulse, respiratory rate (RR), Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), and prehospital treatment provided. The level of agreement between the two sources was compared using kappa statistics and concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) with 95% confidence intervals.Results: Of the 200 encounters that met inclusion criteria, 72% had matching chief complaints between the TOC and PCR. Medications matched in 66% and allergies matched in 82%. Up to three BP, pulse, and RR readings were collected; only 30% of the third BP readings were available from the TOC, while 68% were available from the PCR. Comparing the three SBP values on the TOC to respective counterparts on the PCR showed a substantial correlation (all CCC >0.95). Pulse and DBP values had moderate-to-substantial correlation (CCC: 0.93, 0.94, 0.96 and 0.77, 0.92, 0.94 respectively). RR showed inconsistent correlation (CCC: 0.37, 0.84, 0.94). GCS showed a moderate correlation between the two forms (CCC: 0.81).Conclusion: There were significant differences between the information transferred to the ED through the TOC compared to what was recorded in the PCR. Further evaluation of the TOC process is needed to improve accuracy.

Highlights

  • Transition of care from one provider to the is a fragile point in healthcare during which there is a high risk for medical error that could negatively impact a patient’s course of treatment

  • Up to three BP, pulse, and respiratory rate (RR) readings were collected; only 30% of the third BP readings were available from the transfer-of-care form (TOC), while 68% were available from the patient care report (PCR)

  • Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) showed a moderate correlation between the two forms (CCC: 0.81)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Transition of care from one provider to the is a fragile point in healthcare during which there is a high risk for medical error that could negatively impact a patient’s course of treatment. A systematic review of the literature has shown that several transition guidelines have yielded mixed results in streamlining the transition at this intersection [6,7,8,9] Both EMS and ED personnel believe that this handoff represents a dynamic point in emergency medical care that can have significant implications on a patient’s course of treatment. In Pennsylvania, EMS to ED handoff consists of a standardized transfer-of-care form (TOC) that is provided by EMS in addition to a verbal report. In Pennsylvania, this handoff consists of a transfer-of-care form (TOC) provided by EMS to ED in addition to a verbal report. A prehospital patient care report (PCR) is later filed by EMS up to 72 hours after concluding care

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.