Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Ambulance quality and outcome measures for general non-conveyed populations (AQUA): A scoping review

  • Erik Höglund ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Erik Höglund, Carl Magnusson, Jakob Lederman, Douglas Spangler

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    erik.hoglund@oru.se

    Affiliation Faculty of Medicine and Health, University Health Care Research Center, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

  • Carl Magnusson ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Erik Höglund, Carl Magnusson, Jakob Lederman, Douglas Spangler

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

  • Jakob Lederman ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Erik Höglund, Carl Magnusson, Jakob Lederman, Douglas Spangler

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden

  • Douglas Spangler ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Erik Höglund, Carl Magnusson, Jakob Lederman, Douglas Spangler

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Surgical Sciences—Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Uppsala Center for Prehospital Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

  • Lilian Vloet ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    ‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.

    Affiliations Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, Research Department of Emergency and Critical Care, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

  • Remco Ebben

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    ‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.

    Affiliations Research Department of Emergency and Critical Care, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, Emergency Medical Service, Veiligheids- en Gezondheidsregio Gelderland-Midden, Arnhem, The Netherlands

Abstract

Background

An increasing number of patients receive ambulance care without being conveyed to a definitive care provider. This process has been described as complex, challenging, and lacking in guideline support by EMS clinicians. The use of quality- and outcome measures among non-conveyed patients is an understudied phenomenon.

Aim

To identify current quality- and outcome measures for the general population of non-conveyed patients in order to describe major trends and knowledge gaps.

Methods

A scoping review of peer-reviewed original articles was conducted to identify quality- and outcome measures for non-conveyance within emergency medical services. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews statement (PRISMA-ScR) was followed. The PROSPERO and OSF database were checked for pending reviews or protocols. PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library database were searched for relevant articles. Searches were performed in November 2023.

Results

Thirty-six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Mortality was the most used outcome measure, reported in 24 (67%) of the articles. Emergency department attendance and hospital admission were the following most used outcome measures. Follow-up durations varied substantially between both measures and studies. Mortality rates were found to have the longest follow-up times, with a median follow-up duration a little bit over one week.

Conclusions

This scoping review shows that studies report a wide range of quality and outcome measures in the ambulance setting to measure non-conveyance. Reported quality and outcome measures were also heterogeneous with regard to their follow-up timeframe. The variety of approaches to evaluate non-conveyance poses challenges for future research and quality improvement. A more uniform approach to reporting and measuring non-conveyance is needed to enable comparisons between contexts and formal meta-analysis.

Introduction

Demand for Emergency Medical Service (EMS) care has increased over the past decade, driven by a patient population with increasingly complex health care needs, limited emergency care resources, and more frequent calls for primary care problems. [19]. With this increasing demand for ambulance care, an increasing number of patients receive ambulance care without being conveyed to hospital [10,11]. In this article, non-conveyance is defined as clinician-initiated, definitive on-scene care by an (ambulance) EMS clinician with any level of training and referral to any health care service other than conveyance by an ambulance to a hospital. The definition thus includes the practice of referring patients to the emergency department by alternate means (e.g. a private vehicle or taxi), to primary health care providers, and all other health care facilities and services. For general patient populations, the proportion of non-conveyed patients has been found to range from 3.7–93.7% [12]. The non-conveyed population is characterized by younger patients relative to conveyed patients. Common on-scene diagnoses for non-conveyed patients include abdomen and chest pain, breathing difficulties, trauma, low blood glucose levels, psychiatric problems, as well as a substantial number of patients with non-classifiable symptoms [13,14]. Non-conveyed patients have further been found to often have at least one abnormal vital sign [1315]. This wide range of potential diagnoses, difficult-to-classify symptoms, abnormal vital signs, and plethora of alternate care pathways all contribute to a difficult decision-making process [13,15,16]. A significant proportion of ambulance patients seek health care following non-conveyance [15,17], though it is not clear what this entails in terms of patient safety [12]. This process has been experienced as complex, challenging, and lacking guideline support by EMS clinicians [12,18,19]. Patients have reported relatively high satisfaction with the care provided during non-conveyance, although it can evoke fear, shame, and a need for reassurance [20,21]. When not conveyed, and instead diagnosed and/or treated on-scene, patients can be referred to a wide range of health care services or left with no follow-up care. Although EMS clinician and patients have a positive attitude towards using alternate care pathways, the safety of the practice of referral to these alternatives remains unclear [22,23].

Historically, the safety of ambulance care has predominantly been measured using non-clinical, often time-related quality measures [24]. There is little to no evidence regarding the clinical benefits of evaluating EMS quality and performance using non-clinical quality measures [25]. The last two decades have seen the increasing use of clinical quality measures, which are most often applicable to specific and rare time-critical conditions (e.g. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest). Thus, relatively few patients are impacted by their use [26]. Developing meaningful quality measures that holistically measure the quality of EMS care requires a clear definition of quality [27]. The concept of quality is highly contextual, which has resulted in a substantial variety of definitions of quality among clinicians, researchers, and society in general [28,29]. The use of quality measures among non-conveyed patients is an understudied phenomenon with a great variety of different outcome measures, making drawing generalizable conclusions difficult [12,30].

Therefore, to increase our knowledge regarding relevant outcome measures for the general non-conveyed patient population, we conducted a scoping review with the primary objective of identifying current quality and outcome measures for patients non-conveyed by EMS clinicians.

The aim of the study was to identify current quality and outcome measures for the general non-conveyance patient population in order to describe major trends and knowledge gaps.

Methods

Design

A scoping review was chosen since the research question was broad, and prior knowledge suggested that relatively few research papers described quality- or outcome measures for non-conveyed patients in the ambulance setting [31]. The scoping review is reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews statement (PRISMA-ScR) [32].

Search strategy

The PROSPERO and OSF database were checked for pending reviews or protocols on the same topic, and none were identified. Systematic literature search strategies were developed for PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, Maryland USA), CINAHL (EBSCO Information Services; Ipswich, Massachusetts USA), Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam Netherlands), Web of Science (Clarivate, Philadelphia USA) and the Cochrane Library (The Cochrane Collaboration; Oxford, United Kingdom). All authors and information specialists at the Karolinska University library took part in the development of the search strategy. Searches were performed in November 2023. Full search strategies per database are described in (S1 File).

Selection process

First, search queries for each database were downloaded and imported to BibDesk© v.1.8.11 where all hits were systematically deduplicated [33] and manually reviewed regarding duplication. Second, articles eligible for screening were imported to Rayyan [34]. Two pairs of independent researchers (EH/DS and CM/JL) each screened half of the identified records on title and abstract and decided on inclusion to the next step. The first step was conducted blinded between the two researchers. There were less than five percent conflicts of inclusion between all authors. Conflicts were resolved by consensus in full group discussions. Third, the articles eligible for inclusion were screened, blinded, in full text by the same two researchers. If articles were excluded in the full-text screening phase, the reasons for exclusion are reported in the flow diagram. Fourth, reference lists in all identified systematic reviews and scoping reviews were manually screened, first on title, then abstract and finally full-text articles in the same manner as in steps two and three.

Inclusion criteria: (1) Peer-reviewed research written in English, (2) All countries with no time constraints and including all study designs, (3) Research concerning non-conveyance within the ambulance service (e.g., not evaluations of emergency departments, primary health care, and dispatch centers.), (4) Articles reporting on the use or development of a quality- or outcome measures, (5) All provider levels were included, but had to be dispatched via the 9-1-1/1-1-2 system (e.g. not including community paramedicine interventions).

Exclusion criteria: (1) Articles reporting on clinical subgroups, for example; hypoglycemia and opioid overdose, (2) Articles clearly and only reporting on patient-initiated refusal of care, (3) Review articles.

All included articles were then divided between, and reviewed by one of the authors, who extracted all relevant information, including all identifiable quality and outcome measures. No evaluation of the quality of the included articles was performed since the main interest was the prevalence of reported quality and outcome measures in the literature rather than the findings of the studies.

Analysis

The analysis was guided by the methodological framework described by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) [31]. The extracted measures were recorded in a Google Sheets document and then reviewed by the authors collaboratively. In this process, similar measures which had been written in different ways were combined (e.g., “EMS recontact” and “recontact with EMS” or “death” and “mortality”) and categorized into overarching types of measures. These data were then exported and processed using R (v 4.2.0) to generate descriptive statistics. The prevalence of each measure was described using absolute values and percentages. The follow-up time used in the studies for each measure was described in aggregate using box plots. The complete R code used to produce the analysis and generate tables and figures is available as (S2 File).

Results

From the database searches, 2,515 hits were identified. After deduplication, a total of 1,622 titles and abstracts were included for screening. In the first step, articles were included based on title and abstract. Of all screened articles, a total of 62 were retrieved to be read in full text, 32 of which were excluded. Of these, 15 articles were excluded due to the evaluation of sub-populations (e.g., hypoglycemia, falls, or opioid overdose). Twelve articles were not based on original research (i.e., review articles). Four articles evaluated only patient-initiated refusals, and one article concerned the evaluation of the theoretical ability of providers to predict patient outcomes. Thirty articles from the database searches fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The 12 excluded review articles were read in full text, and 274 references were extracted. These references were screened in the same way as the articles for the database searches. Of all review article references, six original articles were included after deduplication, abstract screening and full-text review. In total 36 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The selection process is described in Fig 1.

Included articles were produced in the Sweden (7), USA (9), UK (5), Finland (4), Australia (4), Netherlands (1), Canada (3), Iran (1), and New Zealand (2). The ambulances were most commonly staffed by paramedics. A variety of study designs, Observational (n = 30), Mixed methods (n = 3), Qualitative (n = 1), Cluster-randomized (n = 1), Case-control (n = 1), and data collection approaches (Prospective (n = 14), Retrospective (n = 16) was used. Patients were of all ages, and various cut-off thresholds between 15–21 years were used to define adulthood. Fourteen studies included only adult patients, four studies included only children, one study included only elderly (>60 years) patients, and one study included only adult non-elderly patients (18–65 years). The remainder reported results for patients of all ages (Table 1).

Several different quality and outcome measures were described in the included articles (Table 2). Most commonly reported quality or outcome measure involved an event or health care contact. Mortality was the most used measure, reported in 24 of 36 articles. Emergency department attendance and hospital admission were the following most used outcome measures.

thumbnail
Table 2. Description of identified quality and outcome measures.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306341.t002

Follow-up durations varied substantially between both measures and studies, as described in Fig 2 below. Mortality rates were found to have the longest follow-up times, with a median follow-up duration of slightly over one week. Other measures had shorter follow-up durations, with all other measures with more than five occurrences in the literature having a median follow-up time of 72 hours or less.

thumbnail
Fig 2. Box plot of follow-up durations of quality measures with >5 occurrences, log scaled.

Note that n values are larger than in Table 2 due to studies reporting quality measures at multiple follow-up durations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306341.g002

Discussion

This study found that patient mortality was the most commonly investigated quality or outcome measure following non-conveyance, reported in 24 (67%) of included studies. Measures of subsequent patient contact with the emergency department were found in 21 (58%) of all included studies, and hospital admission was reported in 20 (56%). The median follow-up duration for mortality was about one week, while emergency department visits and hospital admission measures were most commonly measured at three days. Outcome measures were often based on retrospectively gathered data. At the same time, only a few studies investigated patient-reported measures or measures based on expert review.

The interpretation of the identified measures varies substantially depending on the type of care pathway a patient is referred to following a non-conveyance decision (e.g., primary care or alternate transport to an emergency department). To increase the clinical relevance of the reported outcome measures concerning subsequent contacts, outcomes should be reported and stratified by non-conveyance destination.

The vast majority of the identified measures were based on all-cause data, and as argued by Ebben et al., health care re-contact rates are most relevant when they are related to the initial non-conveyance decision [12]. The validity and clinical relevance of the quality measures may thus be questionable. In an emergency department setting for instance, about 6 percent of repeated contacts within 72 hours were unrelated to the initial contact [71] while in a dispatching context, a 15% rate of unrelated contacts within 72 hours has been found [72]. Determining the relationship between two health care contacts can however be time-consuming, based on retrospective data, and such determinations have been found to have low interrater reliability [72]. The development of a standardized definition of whether two health care contacts are related could aid in promoting more valid and reproducible results. Many of the reported quality and outcome measures can only be obtained if data between different care providers (for instance, emergency dispatcher, primary care, EMS and emergency department) is linked, which is a barrier to data collection in some contexts [73].

We argue that the extent to which subsequent health care contacts, such as emergency department visits or hospital admissions, should be considered adverse events is questionable. The relevance of mortality over the long follow-up durations found in this study in measuring the quality of ambulance care is also open to question. The proportion of related contacts among subsequent health care contacts has been shown to decrease substantially over time [72]. Shorter-term mortality rates are arguably sufficient to capture situations where an adverse event might have occurred while minimizing sources of bias and random noise. Survival curves may offer a more nuanced alternative to reporting patient mortality rates over fixed durations [7476]. It may furthermore be appropriate to exclude, or at least separately report, patients in end-of-life palliative care with short life expectancy from mortality statistics.

We found only one study evaluating the agreement between EMS clinicians and hospital clinicians, though additional studies evaluating such agreement rates were identified but excluded as they evaluated agreement only theoretically, e.g., whether a transported patient could have been left at home [77]. Performing expert reviews of medical records to identify triage errors has been found to be useful in similar contexts. Performing manual expert reviews of non-conveyance decisions determined to be “high risk” based on an automatically extracted quality measures may offer a fruitful approach to improving quality and limiting patient risks in the context of non-conveyance decisions in the EMS [72].

Not all articles stated who initiated the non-conveyance decision. Since the current study focused on describing quality and outcome measures relevant to clinician-initiated non-conveyance decisions, articles that clearly and only described patient-initiated refusals were excluded. Articles that did not clearly state who made the non-conveyance decision were still included to describe as many quality and outcome measures for the general non-conveyance population as possible.

This scoping review provides a high-level overview of how non-conveyance for the general non-conveyance population is measured and reported. How the described quality and outcome measures relate to patient safety remains unclear.

Limitations

Scoping reviews have a significant limitation compared to systematic reviews in the generally broad nature of the research question, resulting most often in similarly broad and heterogeneous findings. This makes it more difficult to synthesize the findings comprehensively. Articles that fulfill the inclusion criteria could also be missed. Nonetheless, scoping reviews are appropriate for the aim of describing a body of research and identifying major patterns. The results of this review showed significant heterogeneity; therefore, results had to be abstracted to a high level. Although two to three authors reviewed each article and agreement between authors during the inclusion and exclusion process was high, no formal quality assessment of included articles was performed. This decision was made since the research question involved describing the quality and outcome measures used in the literature, rather than drawing conclusions regarding their findings.

Conclusions

This scoping review shows that studies reported a wide range of measures in the ambulance setting to measure the quality- and outcomes of non-conveyance. The majority of included studies however included subsequent mortality, emergency department visits, and hospital admission. Studies were heterogeneous with regard to their follow-up timeframe, ranging from one day to one year. The most commonly reported outcome measures were in the form of mortality rates or subsequent contacts with the health care system following non-conveyance. There was a lack of patient-reported quality and outcome measures. The variety of approaches to evaluating non-conveyance poses challenges for future research.

A uniform approach to measuring and reporting non-conveyance is needed to enable comparisons between contexts and formal meta-analysis.

These findings can be used by researchers seeking to use standardized quality measures, outcome measures and follow-up durations in future studies to maximize the comparability of prehospital research. We furthermore identify a substantial reliance on outcome measures that can be easily extracted retrospectively from hospital records. Such measures are useful in terms of comparative evaluations and performing an initial selection for patients experiencing a potential adverse event. EMS organizations should consider various quality and outcome measures to capture multiple aspects of the phenomenon. The relevance of each quality and outcome measure needs further investigation. New quality and outcome measures may need to be developed to capture additional important aspects.

The current study revealed knowledge gaps related to uniformity in reporting strategies and the need for future studies to evaluate the clinical relevance of the used quality and outcome measures. The development of more sophisticated methods to more precisely identify adverse events resulting from non-conveyance should be sought. Our findings may be useful for EMS providers seeking to measure the complex phenomenon of non-conveyance.

References

  1. 1. Edwards MJ, Bassett G, Sinden L, Fothergill RT. Frequent callers to the ambulance service: patient profiling and impact of case management on patient utilisation of the ambulance service. Emerg Med J. 2015;32(5):392–6. pmid:25312857
  2. 2. Søvsø MB, Kløjgaard TA, Hansen PA, Christensen EF. Repeated ambulance use is associated with chronic diseases—a population-based historic cohort study of patients’ symptoms and diagnoses. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2019;27(1):46. pmid:30992042
  3. 3. Jones CMC, Wasserman EB, Li T, Amidon A, Abbott M, Shah MN. The Effect of Older Age on EMS Use for Transportation to an Emergency Department. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(3):261–8. pmid:28190410
  4. 4. Booker MJ, Purdy S, Shaw ARG. Seeking ambulance treatment for ’primary care’ problems: a qualitative systematic review of patient, carer and professional perspectives. BMJ open. 2017;7(8):e016832. pmid:28775192
  5. 5. Christensen EF, Larsen TM, Jensen FB, Bendtsen MD, Hansen PA, Johnsen SP, et al. Diagnosis and mortality in prehospital emergency patients transported to hospital: a population-based and registry-based cohort study. BMJ open. 2016;6(7):e011558. pmid:27377636
  6. 6. Snooks HA, Khanom A, Cole R, Edwards A, Edwards BM, Evans BA, et al. What are emergency ambulance services doing to meet the needs of people who call frequently? A national survey of current practice in the United Kingdom. BMC Emerg Med. 2019;19(1):82. pmid:31883535
  7. 7. Sangkharat K, Fisher P, Thomas GN, Thornes J, Pope FD. The impact of air pollutants on ambulance dispatches: A systematic review and meta-analysis of acute effects. Environ Pollut. 2019;254(Pt A):112769. pmid:31419665
  8. 8. Sangkharat K, Mahmood MA, Thornes JE, Fisher PA, Pope FD. Impact of extreme temperatures on ambulance dispatches in London, UK. Environ Res. 2020;182:109100. pmid:31918315
  9. 9. Courtemanche C, Friedson AI, Rees DI. Association of Ambulance Use in New York City With the Implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(6):e196419. pmid:31251380
  10. 10. Andrew E., Nehme Z., Cameron P., & Smith K. (2020). Drivers of Increasing Emergency Ambulance Demand. Prehospital Emergency Care, 24(3), 385–393. pmid:31237460
  11. 11. Larsen T, Bendtsen M, Søvsø M, Lindskou T, Hansen P, Jensen F, et al. Treat-and-release EMS patients in the north denmark region: identification and vital signs. BMJ open. 2017;7:A13–A.
  12. 12. Ebben RHA, Vloet LCM, Speijers RF, Tonjes NW, Loef J, Pelgrim T, et al. A patient-safety and professional perspective on non-conveyance in ambulance care: a systematic review. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017;25(1):71. pmid:28716132
  13. 13. Lederman J, Lindström V, Elmqvist C, Löfvenmark C, Djärv T. Non-conveyance in the ambulance service: a population-based cohort study in Stockholm, Sweden. BMJ open. 2020;10(7):e036659. pmid:32665389
  14. 14. Hoglund E, Andersson-Hagiwara M, Schroder A, Moller M, Ohlsson-Nevo E. Characteristics of non-conveyed patients in emergency medical services (EMS): a one-year prospective descriptive and comparative study in a region of Sweden. BMC Emerg Med. 2020;20(1):61. pmid:32778074
  15. 15. Vloet LCM, de Kreek A, van der Linden EMC, van Spijk JJA, Theunissen VAH, van Wanrooij M, et al. A retrospective comparison between non-conveyed and conveyed patients in ambulance care. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018;26(1):91. pmid:30373652
  16. 16. Höglund E, Schröder A, Möller M, Andersson-Hagiwara M, Ohlsson-Nevo E. The ambulance nurse experiences of non-conveying patients. J Clin Nurs. 2019; 28: 235–244. pmid:30016570
  17. 17. Mikolaizak AS, Simpson PM, Tiedemann A, Lord SR, Close JC. Systematic review of non-transportation rates and outcomes for older people who have fallen after ambulance service call-out. Australasian journal on ageing. 2013;32(3):147–57. pmid:24028454
  18. 18. Lederman J, Lofvenmark C, Djarv T, Lindstrom V, Elmqvist C. Assessing non-conveyed patients in the ambulance service: a phenomenological interview study with Swedish ambulance clinicians. BMJ open. 2019;9(9):e030203. pmid:31551383
  19. 19. Oosterwold J, Sagel D, Berben S, Roodbol P, Broekhuis M. Factors influencing the decision to convey or not to convey elderly people to the emergency department after emergency ambulance attendance: a systematic mixed studies review. BMJ Open. 2018 Aug 30;8(8):e021732. pmid:30166299; PMCID: PMC6119414.
  20. 20. van Doorn SCM, Verhalle RC, Ebben RHA, Frost DM, Vloet LCM, de Brouwer CPM. The experience of non-conveyance following emergency medical service triage from the perspective of patients and their relatives: A qualitative study. Int Emerg Nurs. 2021;54:100952. pmid:33383408
  21. 21. King R, Oprescu F, Lord B, Flanagan B. Patient experience of non-conveyance following emergency ambulance service response: A scoping review of the literature. Australas Emerg Care. 2021;24(3):210–23. pmid:32943367
  22. 22. Blodgett JM, Robertson DJ, Pennington E, Ratcliffe D, Rockwood K. Alternatives to direct emergency department conveyance of ambulance patients: a scoping review of the evidence. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2021;29(1):4. pmid:33407771
  23. 23. Ebben RHA, Castelijns M, Frenken J, Vloet LCM. Characteristics of non-conveyance ambulance runs: A retrospective study in the Netherlands. World J Emerg Med. 2019;10(4):239–43. pmid:31534599
  24. 24. Price L. Treating the clock and not the patient: ambulance response times and risk. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(2):127–30. pmid:16585114
  25. 25. Myers JB, Slovis CM, Eckstein M, Goodloe JM, Isaacs SM, Loflin JR, et al. Evidence-based performance measures for emergency medical services systems: a model for expanded EMS benchmarking. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2008;12(2):141–51. pmid:18379908
  26. 26. Howard I, Cameron P, Wallis L, Castren M, Lindstrom V. Quality Indicators for Evaluating Prehospital Emergency Care: A Scoping Review. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(1):43–52. pmid:29223193
  27. 27. Pap R, Lockwood C, Stephenson M, Simpson P. Indicators to measure prehospital care quality: a scoping review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2018;16(11):2192–223. pmid:30439748
  28. 28. Cooperberg MR, Birkmeyer JD, Litwin MS. Defining high quality health care. Urol Oncol. 2009;27(4):411–6. pmid:19573771
  29. 29. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260(12):1743–8. pmid:3045356
  30. 30. Yeung T., Shannon B., Perillo S., Nehme Z., Jennings P. and Olaussen A. (2019), Review article: Outcomes of patients who are not transported following ambulance attendance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Emergency Medicine Australasia, 31: 321–331. https://doi-org.db.ub.oru.se/10.1111/1742-6723.13288. pmid:30943579
  31. 31. Arksey H. and O’Malley L. (2005) ‘Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), pp. 19–32.
  32. 32. Tricco Andrea C., Lillie Erin, Zarin Wasifa, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med.2018;169:467–473. [Epub 4 September 2018]. pmid:30178033
  33. 33. Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Jul;104(3):240–3. pmid:27366130
  34. 34. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210. pmid:27919275
  35. 35. *Blodgett JM, Robertson DJ, Ratcliffe D, Rockwood K. Piloting data linkage in a prospective cohort study of a GP referral scheme to avoid unnecessary emergency department conveyance. BMC Emerg Med. 2020 Jun 12;20(1):48. pmid:32532217
  36. 36. *Bosson N, Toy J, Chang A, Haase D, Kipust A, Korotzer L, Warren J, Kim YS, Kazan C, Gausche-Hill M. Short-Term Outcomes and Patient Perceptions after Paramedic Non-Transport during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2023 May 3:1–7. pmid:37078829
  37. 37. *Breeman W, Poublon NA, Verhofstad MHJ, Van Lieshout EMM. Safety of on-scene medical care by EMS nurses in non-transported patients: a prospective, observational study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018 Sep 14;26(1):79. pmid:30217231
  38. 38. *Carrigan S, Goldstein J, Carter A, Asada Y, Travers A. The Prevalence and Characteristics of Non-Transports in a Provincial Emergency Medical Services System: A Population-Based Study. J Emerg Med. 2022 Apr;62(4):534–544. pmid:35131130
  39. 39. *Cooper S, Barrett B, Black S, Evans C, Real C, Williams S, Wright B. The emerging role of the emergency care practitioner. Emerg Med J. 2004 Sep;21(5):614–8. pmid:15333548
  40. 40. *Coster J, O’Cathain A, Jacques R, Crum A, Siriwardena AN, Turner J. Outcomes for Patients Who Contact the Emergency Ambulance Service and Are Not Transported to the Emergency Department: A Data Linkage Study. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2019 Jul-Aug;23(4):566–577. pmid:30582719
  41. 41. *Forsell L, Forsberg A, Kisch A, Rantala A. Inequalities and short-term outcome among patients assessed as non-urgent in a Swedish ambulance service setting. Int Emerg Nurs. 2021 Jul;57:101018. pmid:34147876
  42. 42. *Haines CJ, Lutes RE, Blaser M, Christopher NC. Paramedic initiated non-transport of pediatric patients. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006 Apr-Jun;10(2):213–9. pmid:16531379
  43. 43. *Heinonen K, Puolakka T, Salmi H, Boyd J, Laiho M, Porthan K, et al. Ambulance crew-initiated non-conveyance in the Helsinki EMS system-A retrospective cohort study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2022 May;66(5):625–633. pmid:35170028
  44. 44. *Höglund E, Schröder A, Andersson-Hagiwara M, Möller M, Ohlsson-Nevo E. Outcomes in patients not conveyed by emergency medical services (EMS): a one-year prospective study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2022 Jun 13;30(1):40. pmid:35698086
  45. 45. *Jensen JL, Travers AH, Bardua DJ, Dobson T, Cox B, McVey J, et al. Transport outcomes and dispatch determinants in a paramedic long-term care program: a pilot study. CJEM. 2013 Jul;15(4):206–13. pmid:23777992
  46. 46. *Kahalé J, Osmond MH, Nesbitt L, Stiell IG. What are the characteristics and outcomes of nontransported pediatric patients? Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006 Jan-Mar;10(1):28–34. pmid:16418088
  47. 47. *Keene T, Davis M, Brook C. Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Assessed by Paramedics and Not Transported to Hospital: A Pilot Study. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine. 2015;12:1–8.
  48. 48. *Knapp BJ, Tsuchitani SN, Sheele JM, Prince J, Powers J. Prospective evaluation of an emergency medical services-administered alternative transport protocol. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2009 Oct-Dec;13(4):432–6. pmid:19731153.
  49. 49. *Langabeer JR 2nd, Gonzalez M, Alqusairi D, Champagne-Langabeer T, Jackson A, Mikhail J, et al. Telehealth-Enabled Emergency Medical Services Program Reduces Ambulance Transport to Urban Emergency Departments. West J Emerg Med. 2016 Nov;17(6):713–720. pmid:27833678
  50. 50. *Larsson G, Holmén A, Ziegert K. Early prehospital assessment of non-urgent patients and outcomes at the appropriate level of care: A prospective exploratory study. Int Emerg Nurs. 2017 May;32:45–49. pmid:28291697
  51. 51. *Laukkanen L, Lahtinen S, Raatiniemi L, Ehrola A, Kaakinen T, Liisanantti J. Emergency department admission and mortality of the non-transported emergency medical service patients: a cohort study from Northern Finland. Emerg Med J. 2022 Jun;39(6):443–450. pmid:33879493
  52. 52. *Lederman J, Lindström V, Elmqvist C, Löfvenmark C, Ljunggren G, Djärv T. Non-conveyance of older adult patients and association with subsequent clinical and adverse events after initial assessment by ambulance clinicians: a cohort analysis. BMC Emerg Med. 2021 Dec 11;21(1):154. pmid:34895152
  53. 53. *Magnusson C, Källenius C, Knutsson S, Herlitz J, Axelsson C. Pre-hospital assessment by a single responder: The Swedish ambulance nurse in a new role: A pilot study. Int Emerg Nurs. 2016 May;26:32–7. pmid:26472522
  54. 54. *Magnusson C, Herlitz J, Karlsson T, Axelsson C. Initial assessment, level of care and outcome among children who were seen by emergency medical services: a prospective observational study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018 Oct 19;26(1):88. pmid:30340502
  55. 55. *Magnusson C, Herlitz J, Axelsson C. Patient characteristics, triage utilisation, level of care, and outcomes in an unselected adult patient population seen by the emergency medical services: a prospective observational study. BMC Emerg Med. 2020 Jan 30;20(1):7. pmid:32000684
  56. 56. *Mason S, Knowles E, Colwell B, Dixon S, Wardrope J, Gorringe R, et al. Effectiveness of paramedic practitioners in attending 999 calls from elderly people in the community: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007 Nov 3;335(7626):919. pmid:17916813
  57. 57. *Nehme E, Nehme Z, Cox S, Smith K. Outcomes of paediatric patients who are not transported to hospital by Emergency Medical Services: a data linkage study. Emerg Med J. 2023 Jan;40(1):12–19. pmid:36202623
  58. 58. *Oulasvirta J, Salmi H, Kuisma M, Rahiala E, Lääperi M, Harve-Rytsälä H. Outcomes in children evaluated but not transported by ambulance personnel: retrospective cohort study. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2019 Oct 23;3(1):e000523. pmid:31750406
  59. 59. *Paulin J, Kurola J, Koivisto M, Iirola T. EMS non-conveyance: A safe practice to decrease ED crowding or a threat to patient safety? BMC Emerg Med. 2021 Oct 9;21(1):115. pmid:34627138
  60. 60. *Peyravi M, Örtenwall P, Khorram-Manesh A. Can Medical Decision-making at the Scene by EMS Staff Reduce the Number of Unnecessary Ambulance Transportations, but Still Be Safe? PLoS Curr. 2015 Jun 30;7. pmid:26203394
  61. 61. *Pringle RP Jr, Carden DL, Xiao F, Graham DD Jr. Outcomes of patients not transported after calling 911. J Emerg Med. 2005 May;28(4):449–54. pmid:15837028
  62. 62. *Schmidt TA, Atcheson R, Federiuk C, Mann NC, Pinney T, Fuller D, Colbry K. Hospital follow-up of patients categorized as not needing an ambulance using a set of emergency medical technician protocols. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2001 Oct-Dec;5(4):366–70. pmid:11642586
  63. 63. *Schmidt MJ, Handel D, Lindsell CJ, Collett L, Gallo P, Locasto D. Evaluating an emergency medical services-initiated nontransport system. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006 Jul-Sep;10(3):390–3. pmid:16801286
  64. 64. *Snooks H, Kearsley N, Dale J, Halter M, Redhead J, Cheung WY. Towards primary care for non-serious 999 callers: results of a controlled study of "Treat and Refer" protocols for ambulance crews. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Dec;13(6):435–43. pmid:15576705
  65. 65. *Supples MW, Liao M, O’Donnell DP, Duszynski TJ, Glober NK. Descriptive analysis of emergency medical services 72-hour repeat patient encounters in a single, Urban Agency. Am J Emerg Med. 2023 Mar;65:113–117. pmid:36608394
  66. 66. *Todd VF, Swain A, Howie G, Tunnage B, Smith T, Dicker B. Factors Associated with Emergency Medical Service Reattendance in Low Acuity Patients Not Transported by Ambulance. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2021 Jan 25:1–17. pmid:33320722
  67. 67. *Todd VF, Moylan M, Howie G, Swain A, Brett A, Smith T, et al. Predictive value of the New Zealand Early Warning Score for early mortality in low-acuity patients discharged at scene by paramedics: an observational study. BMJ Open. 2022 Jul 14;12(7):e058462. pmid:35835524
  68. 68. *Tohira H, Fatovich D, Williams TA, Bremner A, Arendts G, Rogers IR, et al. Which patients should be transported to the emergency department? A perpetual prehospital dilemma. Emerg Med Australas. 2016 Dec;28(6):647–653. pmid:27592495
  69. 69. *Tohira H, Fatovich D, Williams TA, Bremner AP, Arendts G, Rogers IR, et al. Is it Appropriate for Patients to be Discharged at the Scene by Paramedics? Prehospital emergency care. 2016;20(4):539–49. pmid:26836060
  70. 70. *Zachariah BS, Bryan D, Pepe PE, Griffin M. Follow-up and Outcome of Patients Who Decline or Are Denied Transport by EMS. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine. 1992;7(4):359–64.
  71. 71. Cheng SY, Wang HT, Lee CW, Tsai TC, Hung CW, Wu KH. The characteristics and prognostic predictors of unplanned hospital admission within 72 hours after ED discharge. The American journal of emergency medicine. 2013;31(10):1490–4. pmid:24029494
  72. 72. Spangler D, Edmark L, Winblad U, Colldén-Benneck J, Borg H, Blomberg H. Using trigger tools to identify triage errors by ambulance dispatch nurses in Sweden: an observational study. BMJ open. 2020;10(3):e035004. pmid:32198303
  73. 73. Bradley CJ, Penberthy L, Devers KJ, Holden DJ. Health services research and data linkages: issues, methods, and directions for the future. Health Serv Res. 2010 Oct;45(5 Pt 2):1468–88. pmid:21054367
  74. 74. Goel MK, Khanna P, Kishore J. Understanding survival analysis: Kaplan-Meier estimate. Int J Ayurveda Res. 2010;1(4):274–8. pmid:21455458
  75. 75. Miles J, Jacques R, Turner J, Mason S. The Safety INdEx of Prehospital On Scene Triage (SINEPOST) study: the development and validation of a risk prediction model to support ambulance clinical transport decisions on-scene-a protocol. Diagn Progn Res. 2021;5(1):18. pmid:34749832
  76. 76. Bjorkman J, Laukkanen-Nevala P, Olkinuora A, Pulkkinen I, Nurmi J. Short-term and long-term survival in critical patients treated by helicopter emergency medical services in Finland: a registry study of 36 715 patients. BMJ open. 2021;11(2):e045642. pmid:33622956
  77. 77. Hauswald M. Can paramedics safely decide which patients do not need ambulance transport or emergency department care? Prehosp Emerg Care. 2002;6(4):383–6. pmid:12385602