Providing Performance Feedback and Patient Outcome Follow-Up to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is Associated with Subsequent Improved Clinical Performance

Abstract

Objective Emergency Medical Services (EMS) clinicians desire performance feedback (PF) and patient outcome follow-up (POF). Within our agency, both a peer-review and feedback/outcome (PF/POF) process exist. Our objective was to determine whether receiving feedback and outcome data improved future clinical care amongst EMS, based upon peer-review scores. Methods This retrospective cohort study took place between 1/1/2020 and 6/7/2023 within an EMS agency site with 22,000 average annual 9-1-1 calls. Requests for PF/POF were submitted on an individual basis beginning June 2020 and completed by a dedicated EMS nurse, EMS physician, or emergency medicine (EM) resident. Peer-review of select high-acuity cases were scored by two Quality Assurance (QA) specialists within the categories of assessment, treatment, disposition/outcome and process/administrative guidelines. Association between overall peer-review score and number of PF/POF requests at time of assessment was evaluated by linear regression. Results A total of 378 PF/POF requests were received, with the most common patient complaints being cardiac (n = 105; 27.8%, including 49 (13.0%) out of hospital cardiac arrests), altered mental status/neurologic (n = 103; 27.2%), trauma (n = 61; 16.1%, including 2 (0.5%) traumatic arrests); and respiratory distress (n = 47; 12.4%). A total of 378 runs meeting QA criteria were peer-reviewed post-PF/POF process implementation, including 337 (89.2%) cardiac/respiratory arrests, 27 (7.1%) with difficult airway management, and 14 (3.7%) major trauma/traumatic arrests. The number of prior PF/POF requests made by the team leader was associated with higher overall peer-review scores. Team leaders with >5 prior PF/POF requests had a peer-review score 0.39 points greater (95% CI: 0.16 − 0.62, p = 0.001) than those with <5 prior requests. The number of prior PF/POF requests amongst the entire crew was also associated with higher peer-review scores. Crews that collectively had >5 prior PF/POF requests had an increase in peer-review score 0.32 points greater (95% CI: 0.14 − 0.50, p < 0.001) than those with <5 prior requests. Conclusion Providing performance feedback and patient outcome follow-up to EMS is associated with improved peer-review scores of clinical performance. Future studies should assess if those that are submitting cases for feedback/outcome are higher performers at baseline or if the process of receiving feedback/outcome improves their performance.