Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:29:43.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing EMS Scope of Practice for Utility and Risk: the New Mexico EMS Interventions Assessment Project, Phase One Results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2012

Marc-David Munk ,
Lynne Fullerton ,
Laura Banks ,
Sarah Morley ,
Robert McDaniels ,
Stuart Castle ,
Kyle Thornton  and
Michael E. Richards
Marc-David Munk*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
Lynne Fullerton
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
Laura Banks
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
Sarah Morley
Affiliation:
Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
Robert McDaniels
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
Stuart Castle
Affiliation:
Bureau of Emergency Medical Systems, New Mexico Department of Health, Santa Fe, New Mexico USA
Kyle Thornton
Affiliation:
Bureau of Emergency Medical Systems, New Mexico Department of Health, Santa Fe, New Mexico USA
Michael E. Richards
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
*
Correspondence: Marc-David Munk, MD, MPH, MHCMUniversity of New Mexico Hospitals Office of Quality and Patient Safety 2211 Lomas Blvd. NE Albuquerque, NM 87106 USA E-mail [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Few emergency medical services (EMS) interventions in New Mexico have been assessed for efficacy, potential harm, or potential benefit. There is concern that many interventions added over the years may be outdated, harmful, or ineffective in the EMS setting. A formal process for reviewing the state EMS scope of practice using literature review and expert consensus is discussed. In Phase One of the project, interventions in the New Mexico EMS scope of practice were prioritized for further review by surveying a national cadre of EMS experts to evaluate EMS interventions using a utilitarian harm/benefit metric.

Methods

An electronic survey based on the 2010 New Mexico EMS Scope of Practice statute was administered from March through June, 2011. A national cadre of 104 respondents was identified. Respondents were either State EMS medical directors or EMS fellowship directors. Respondents were asked to rate the potential harm and the potential benefit of specific EMS interventions on a 5-point ordinal scale. Median harm and benefit scores were calculated.

Results

A total of 88 completed surveys were received following 208 emailed invitations to 104 respondents (43% response rate). Twenty-two (22) highest-priority interventions (those with a harm/benefit median score ratio of >1) were identified. Seven additional second-priority interventions were also identified. These interventions will be advanced for formal literature review and expert consensus.

Conclusions

The New Mexico EMS Interventions Project offers a novel model for assessing a prehospital scope of practice.

MunkMD , FullertonL , BanksL , MorleyS , McDanielsR , CastleS , ThorntonK , RichardsME . Assessing EMS Scope of Practice for Utility and Risk: the New Mexico EMS Interventions Assessment Project, Phase One Results. Prehosp Disaster Med.2012;27(5):1-6.

Keywords

allied health occupationsemergency medical servicesevaluation methodologyhealth carequality assurance
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 27 , Issue 5 , October 2012 , pp. 452 - 457
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National EMS Scope of Practice Model. 2006;DOT HS 810 657:1-42.Google Scholar
2. New Mexico Department of Health. Scopes of Practice for Fully Licensed Emergency Medical Services Personnel. 2010;7.27.2.14 NMAC.Google Scholar
3. Hunt, RC, Sheets, CA, Whitley, TW. Pharyngeal tracheal lumen airway training: failure to discriminate between esophageal and endotracheal modes and failure to confirm ventilation. Ann Emerg Med. 1989;18(9):947-952.Google Scholar
4. Hubble, MW, Wilfong, DA, Brown, LH, Hertelendy, A, Benner, RW. A meta-analysis of prehospital airway control techniques part II: alternative airway devices and cricothyrotomy success rates. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010;14(4):515-530.Google Scholar
5. Lee, EJ, Frazier, SK. The efficacy of acupressure for symptom management: a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011;42(4):589-603.Google Scholar
6. Parameswaran, K, Belda, J, Rowe, BH. Addition of intravenous aminophylline to beta2-agonists in adults with acute asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(4):CD002742.Google Scholar
7. Youngquist, ST, Gausche-Hill, M, Squire, BT, Koenig, WJ. Barriers to adoption of evidence-based prehospital airway management practices in California. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010;14(4):505-509.Google Scholar
8. Gausche, M, Lewis, RJ, Stratton, SJ, et al. Effect of out-of-hospital pediatric endotracheal intubation on survival and neurological outcome: a controlled clinical trial. JAMA. 2000;283(6):783-790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Feder, G, Eccles, M, Grol, R, Griffiths, C, Grimshaw, J. Using clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318(7185):728-730.Google Scholar
10. Woolf, SH, Grol, R, Hutchinson, A, Eccles, M, Grimshaw, J. Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 1999;318(7182):527-530.Google Scholar
11. Shekelle, PG, Woolf, SH, Eccles, M, Grimshaw, J. Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318(7183):593-596.Google Scholar
12. Bissell, RA, Seaman, KG, Bass, RR, et al. Change the scope of practice of paramedics? An EMS/public health policy perspective. Prehosp Emerg Care. 1999;3(2):140-149.Google Scholar
13. Newton, WP. Family physician scope of practice: what it is and why it matters. J Am Board Fam Med. 2011;24(6):633-634.Google Scholar
14. Fox-Young, S, Ashley, C. Developing an Australian framework for scope of practice decisions by nurses and midwives - lessons for cross-border standards development. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19(15-16):2235-2241.Google Scholar
15. Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Fellowship Directory. http://www.saem.org/fellowship-directory. Accessed April 15, 2012 Google Scholar
16. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National EMS Core Content. 2005;DOT HS 809 898:1-44.Google Scholar
17. Thomas, HA, Beeson, MS, Binder, LS, et al. The 2005 Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine: the 2007 update. Ann Emerg Med. 2008;52(2):e1-e17.Google Scholar
18. Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924-926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7652):1049-1051.Google Scholar