Handover between physicians is a high-risk event for communication errors. Using electronic handover platforms has potential to improve the quality of informational transfer and therefore minimise this risk. This systematic review sought to compare the effectiveness of electronic handover methods on patient outcomes. Articles were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMbase, Scopus and CINAHL databases. Studies involving electronic handover between two healthcare personnel or teams, and which described patientspecific outcomes, were included. This search yielded 390 articles, with a total of nine publications included in the analysis. Outcomes reported in studies included length of stay, adverse event rates, time to procedure and handover completeness. This review suggests that e-handover may improve the handover completeness; however, it is unclear at this time if that translates to an improvement in patient care. The lack of reliable evidence highlights the need for further research exploring the effect of e-handovers on patient care.
Introduction: Mobile stroke units (MSU) have demonstrated major time savings for thrombolysis but mixed evidence for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). COVID-19 precautions have dramatically slowed EVT workflows across Australia and we therefore aimed to examine the effect of the Melbourne MSU on thrombectomy times before and during the current pandemic. Methods: Patients receiving EVT facilitated by the Melbourne MSU from 2017-2021 were compared to non-MSU patients (metropolitan direct and secondary transfer for EVT) admitted to the largest Melbourne EVT centre. Quantile regression analysis was used to calculate the median time difference (50 th quantile) between MSU and non-MSU patients before and during the pandemic, grouped by patients within an EVT centre ambulance catchment or those outside (who either received inter-hospital transfer or MSU-facilitated bypass to an EVT centre). Results: A total of 402 patients (112 MSU) were included. Pre-pandemic, no reduction in dispatch to arterial access time was seen for MSU patients within an EVT centre catchment (median 11min slower, p=0.38). However, a significant time saving was observed during the pandemic (median 29 min faster, p<0.001, p-interaction=0.0065). MSU care reduced hospital arrival to arterial access time by median 19min pre-pandemic vs 40 min during the pandemic, p-interaction<0.001). The pandemic did not alter MSU-related time savings for patients located outside of an EVT centre catchment. Conclusions: Melbourne MSU facilitation of EVT during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in greater time savings for patients located close to a thrombectomy centre, while substantial time savings were maintained for those needing bypass from the local non-EVT hospital. This suggests that MSU operation enables streamlined EVT workflows during the pandemic by providing early pre-hospital notification and interventional angiography activation.
Introduction: Widely used emergency dispatch algorithms such as the Advanced Medical Priority Dispatch System (AMPDS) have limited diagnostic accuracy for prehospital diagnosis of stroke. With advent of mobile stroke units (MSU), this inaccuracy prevents optimal dispatch to patients who may benefit. Expedited endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is a major contributor to net benefit of MSUs. We assessed the accuracy of AMPDS for recognizing stroke in thrombectomy patients in the Australian state of Victoria. Methods: We included consecutive patients accepted for EVT (direct and secondary transfer) to The Royal Melbourne Hospital from 2007-2021 in whom linked AMPDS dispatch codes could be obtained from Ambulance Victoria. The primary outcome was the proportion of cases dispatched as stroke vs non-stroke with subgroup analyses of the effect of baseline clinical severity, metropolitan vs rural dispatch and time to thrombectomy. Chi square and Mann Whitney tests were used as appropriate. Results: A total of n=618 patients were included with baseline NIHSS 16 (IQR 10-20). Of these, only 62% (95% CI 58-66) were initially dispatched as suspected stroke, with the most common non-stroke diagnoses being “Unconscious/Fainting” (19.2%) and “Falls” (6.9%). Those with a higher baseline severity (NIHSS ≥10) were less likely to be classified as stroke than those with lower severity (59% vs 76%, p<0.001), while no difference was found between metropolitan and rural patients (p=0.066). Overall, no significant time differences were found between stroke and non-stroke dispatches for ambulance dispatch to arterial access (median 208 vs 216 min, p=0.593) or hospital arrival to arterial access (median 42 vs 42 min, p=0.851). However, only 32 patients were treated on the MSU, which commenced operation November 2017. Conclusions: Almost 40% of thrombectomy patients did not receive an initial AMPDS dispatch of suspected stroke and those with higher baseline severity were more likely to be misclassified. Although time to thrombectomy was not significantly different between stroke vs non-stroke dispatches, MSU treatment was under-represented. Our findings have implications for emergency medical services and particularly mobile stroke units which rely on accurate stroke dispatch.
Introduction Previous evaluations of paramedic-to-general practitioner (GP) referrals have focused on subsequent emergency department presentations or ambulance representations; however, we aimed to appreciate patient adherence where paramedics have recommended follow-up with a GP. Methods This was a prospective cohort study of adult patients in Victoria, Australia, who were referred to a GP by a paramedic over a 28-day period in June 2021. Patients were then contacted within five days to determine subsequent GP attendance. Results Of the 752 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 47% ( n = 353) consented to participate. At the time of the survey, 65% of patients had followed up with their GP, with a further 15% booked in for a future appointment. Factors associated with the increased adjusted likelihood of the participant following up with a GP after paramedic referral included female gender (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22–3.99, P = 0.009) and those given a specific time frame for the follow-up appointment by the paramedics (AOR 3.98, 95% CI 2.26–7.02, P < 0.001). Participants who presented to ambulance services overnight were less likely to follow up with a GP (AOR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17–0.68, P = 0.002). The three most commonly stated reasons for not following up with a GP were that the patient felt it was unnecessary ( n = 48), their regular GP was unavailable ( n = 33) or they had followed up with an alternative service ( n = 31). Conclusion Most patients who are referred to a GP by attending paramedics will follow up with a GP within 72 h. The most common barrier to GP follow-up is the patients’ perception that follow-up is unnecessary.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.