Sarah Gaze

Should I stay or should I go?’ Deciding whether to go to hospital after a 999 call:

Objective In most UK ambulance services, crews attending someone who has phoned the emergency services on ‘999’ will take the patient to hospital, unless the patient makes the decision to stay at home (or wherever they happen to be when the ambulance arrives). Safety concerns have been raised about non-conveyance decisions. Weunder took a study of one UK Ambulance Service to examine ambulance crew members’ views on how decision-making about non-conveyance works in practice in relation to non-urgent calls. Methods A total of 25 paramedics took part in three focus groups. Focus groups were transcribed and analysed thematically. Results The ambulance services apparently straight forward guidance on decision-making about non-conveyance proved tricky in the messiness of the real world, for two reasons. The first was to do with the notion of the patients capacity to make decisions and how this was interpreted. The second was to do with the complexity of the decision-making process, in which the patient, the crew and, in many cases, family or carers often take part in negotiation and de facto joint decision-making. Conclusions There is a mismatch between policy and practice in relation to non-conveyance decisions. Findings should be built into research and service development in this rapidly changing field of practice in emergency and/or unscheduled care. The commonly accepted perspective on shared decision-making should be extended to include the context of ‘999’ ambulance calls.

“Covering our backs”: ambulance crews’ attitudes towards clinical documentation when emergency (999) patients are not conveyed to hospital

Background: Up to 30% of people who call for an emergency ambulance are, for various reasons, not conveyed to hospital. Across the UK, the majority of ambulance services have policies and procedures requiring ambulance crews to complete clinical documentation for these patients, as they do for patients who travel to hospital. However, studies have suggested that documentation does not get completed for a large proportion of non-conveyed patients. Methods: A qualitative study in one large ambulance service trust used focus groups to explore crew members’ attitudes towards clinical documentation and non-conveyed patients. Results: Considerable ambiguity was found: crews were aware of the need to “cover their backs” by completing clinical records, but at the same time expressed doubts about the value of this documentation. There appeared to be two main circumstances in which records were not completed. Firstly, there were the cases where crews may have been unable to obtain necessary information from patients who were intoxicated or otherwise uncooperative. Secondly, there were cases where the crews may not have recognised their encounter with a patient as having a clinical dimension, such as older people who had fallen but were apparently uninjured. These circumstances were combined with a lack of monitoring by managers of whether forms were being completed, and a disinclination on the part of some crew members to do what they regarded as unnecessary work. Conclusion: The low rates of completion of clinical records for non-conveyed patients appeared to result from crew members not believing they were important in every circumstance, combined with a lack of management focus. Low rates of completion may lead in turn to clinical risk and a risk of litigation if things go wrong.

Support and assessment for fall emergency referrals (SAFER 2) research protocol: cluster randomised trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of new protocols for emergency ambulance paramedics to assess and refer to appropriate community-based care

Introduction Emergency calls to ambulance services are frequent for older people who have fallen, but ambulance crews often leave patients at the scene without ongoing care. Evidence shows that when left at home with no further support older people often experience subsequent falls which result in injury and emergency-department attendances. SAFER 2 is an evaluation of a new clinical protocol which allows paramedics to assess and refer older people who have fallen, and do not need hospital care, to community-based falls services. In this protocol paper, we report methods and progress during trial implementation. SAFER 2 is recruiting patients through three ambulance services. A successful trial will provide robust evidence about the value of this new model of care, and enable ambulance services to use resources efficiently. Design Pragmatic cluster randomised trial. Methods and analysis We randomly allocated 25 participating ambulance stations (clusters) in three services to intervention or control group. Intervention paramedics received training and clinical protocols for assessing and referring older people who have fallen to community-based falls services when appropriate, while control paramedics deliver care as usual. Patients are eligible for the trial if they are aged 65 or over; resident in a participating falls service catchment area; and attended by a trial paramedic following an emergency call coded as a fall without priority symptoms. The principal outcome is the rate of further emergency contacts (or death), for any cause and for falls. Secondary outcomes include further falls, health-related quality of life, ‘fear of falling’, patient satisfaction reported by participants through postal questionnaires at 1 and 6 months, and quality and pathways of care at the index incident. We shall compare National Health Service (NHS) and patient/carer costs between intervention and control groups and estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from the intervention and thus incremental cost per QALY. We shall estimate wider system effects on key-performance indicators. We shall interview 60 intervention patients, and conduct focus groups with contributing NHS staff to explore their experiences of the assessment and referral service. We shall analyse quantitative trial data by ‘treatment allocated’; and qualitative data using content analysis. Ethics and dissemination The Research Ethics Committee for Wales gave ethical approval and each participating centre gave NHS Research and Development approval. We shall disseminate study findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Trial Registration: ISRCTN 60481756

Paramedic Assessment of Older Adults After Falls, Including Community Care Referral Pathway: Cluster Randomized Trial

Study objective: We aim to determine clinical and cost‐effectiveness of a paramedic protocol for the care of older people who fall. Methods: We undertook a cluster randomized trial in 3 UK ambulance services between March 2011 and June 2012. We included patients aged 65 years or older after an emergency call for a fall, attended by paramedics based at trial stations. Intervention paramedics could refer the patient to a community‐based falls service instead of transporting the patient to the emergency department. Control paramedics provided care as usual. The primary outcome was subsequent emergency contacts or death. Results: One hundred five paramedics based at 14 intervention stations attended 3,073 eligible patients; 110 paramedics based at 11 control stations attended 2,841 eligible patients. We analyzed primary outcomes for 2,391 intervention and 2,264 control patients. One third of patients made further emergency contacts or died within 1 month, and two thirds within 6 months, with no difference between groups. Subsequent 999 call rates within 6 months were lower in the intervention arm (0.0125 versus 0.0172; adjusted difference –0.0045; 95% confidence interval –0.0073 to –0.0017). Intervention paramedics referred 8% of patients (204/2,420) to falls services and left fewer patients at the scene without any ongoing care. Intervention patients reported higher satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of care. There were no other differences between groups. Mean intervention cost was

Involving older people in a multi-centre randomised trial of a complex intervention in pre-hospital emergency care: implementation of a collaborative model

23 per patient, with no difference in overall resource use between groups at 1 or 6 months. Conclusion: A clinical protocol for paramedics reduced emergency ambulance calls for patients attended for a fall safely and at modest cost.

The social and community opportunities profile social inclusion measure: Structural equivalence and differential item functioning in community mental health residents in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom

BackgroundHealth services research is expected to involve service users as active partners in the research process, but few examples report how this has been achieved in practice in trials. We implemented a model to involve service users in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in pre-hospital emergency care. We used the generic Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) from our Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) as the basis for creating a model to fit the context and population of the SAFER 2 trial.MethodsIn our model, we planned to involve service users at all stages in the trial through decision-making forums at 3 levels: 1) strategic; 2) site (e.g. Wales; London; East Midlands); 3) local. We linked with charities and community groups to recruit people with experience of our study population. We collected notes of meetings alongside other documentary evidence such as attendance records and study documentation to track how we implemented our model.ResultsWe involved service users at strategic, site and local level. We also added additional strategic level forums (Task and Finish Groups and Writing Days) where we included service users. Service user involvement varied in frequency and type across meetings, research stages and locations but stabilised and increased as the trial progressed.ConclusionInvolving service users in the SAFER 2 trial showed how it is feasible and achievable for patients, carers and potential patients sharing the demographic characteristics of our study population to collaborate in a multi-centre trial at the level which suited their health, location, skills and expertise. A standard model of involvement can be tailored by adopting a flexible approach to take account of the context and complexities of a multi-site trial.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN60481756. Registered: 13 March 2009

A14 Involving service users in prehospital emergency care through TRUST

Introduction: China’s future major health problem will be the management of chronic diseases – of which mental health is a major one. An instrument is needed to measure mental health inclusion outcomes for mental health services in Hong Kong and mainland China as they strive to promote a more inclusive society for their citizens and particular disadvantaged groups. Aim: To report on the analysis of structural equivalence and item differentiation in two mentally unhealthy and one healthy sample in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. Method: The mental health sample in Hong Kong was made up of non-governmental organisation (NGO) referrals meeting the selection/exclusion criteria (being well enough to be interviewed, having a formal psychiatric diagnosis and living in the community). A similar sample in the United Kingdom meeting the same selection criteria was obtained from a community mental health organisation, equivalent to the NGOs in Hong Kong. Exploratory factor analysis and logistic regression were conducted. Results: The single-variable, self-rated ‘overall social inclusion’ differs significantly between all of the samples, in the way we would expect from previous research, with the healthy population feeling more included than the serious mental illness (SMI) groups. In the exploratory factor analysis, the first two factors explain between a third and half of the variance, and the single variable which enters into all the analyses in the first factor is having friends to visit the home. All the regression models were significant; however, in Hong Kong sample, only one-fifth of the total variance is explained. Conclusion: The structural findings imply that the social and community opportunities profile–Chinese version (SCOPE-C) gives similar results when applied to another culture. As only one-fifth of the variance of ‘overall inclusion’ was explained in the Hong Kong sample, it may be that the instrument needs to be refined using different or additional items within the structural domains of inclusion.

Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER 1) trial protocol. Computerised on-scene decision support for emergency ambulance staff to assess and plan care for older people who have fallen: evaluation of costs and benefits using a pragmatic cluster randomised trial

Background Service user involvement in health and social care policy-making and research is increasingly encouraged to improve research quality, relevance and accountability. There are particular challenges when involving people in prehospital care research: it is a dynamic and urgent service delivery context; there are no obvious patient groups from which to recruit service users and anyone could be affected by an unplanned illness, accident or assault. TRUST (Thematic Research group for UnScheduled, emergency and Trauma care) is the only UK research network with an exclusive remit of research of emergency and unscheduled care. We wanted to involve service users in developing and undertaking research. Method We recruited patients and carers through the Involving People network and Long Term Conditions Alliance Cymru. People with experience of emergency care or a condition at risk of requiring emergency care were included. We supported with information and expenses. Results Service users are involved at four levels of TRUST activity. At least two people sit on TRUSTs advisory group to consider strategic and operational issues. Service users attend research development groups. Examples include: involvement in a bid to evaluate an electronic patient record form; chronic conditions patients and carers research group; emergency care of stroke workshop. Service users join research management groups on funded TRUST-linked projects. TRUST supports researchers to sustain involvement, for example, SAFER (999 care for older people who fall) trials (1 & 2), PRISM (predictive risk stratification in primary care) evaluation. Service users are involved in data analysis and developing research papers (Patient experience study, chronic conditions policy evaluation). Discussion Patients and carers have experience and knowledge relevant to developing and undertaking prehospital research. TRUST coordinates and supports service user involvement in research in this field. Service users have fed their views into meetings covering project-specific and strategic topics at all stages of the research process.