Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:09:31.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Two Systems for Quality Assurance of Prehospital Advanced Life Support Services

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

C. James Holliman ,
Gregory Swope ,
Lisa Mauger ,
Richard C. Wuerz  and
Steven A. Meador
C. James Holliman*
Affiliation:
The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pa., U.S. HealthTec, Inc., Reading, Pa.
Gregory Swope
Affiliation:
The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pa., U.S. HealthTec, Inc., Reading, Pa.
Lisa Mauger
Affiliation:
The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pa., U.S. HealthTec, Inc., Reading, Pa.
Richard C. Wuerz
Affiliation:
The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pa., U.S. HealthTec, Inc., Reading, Pa.
Steven A. Meador
Affiliation:
The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pa., U.S. HealthTec, Inc., Reading, Pa.
*
Emergency Department, The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, The Pennsylvania State University, P.O. Box 850, Hershey, PA 17033USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

The need for quality assurance (QA) systems for review of prehospital advanced life support (ALS) care has long been recognized. However, there only have been limited published studies on the operation and cost of QA systems for prehospital care. A number of different systems currently are in use, and the relative effectiveness of different QA systems has not been well determined.

Objective:

The aim of this study was to compare the personnel work-time and costs of two different systems of QA for prehospital ALS services, and thereby determine which type of system was more cost-effective in the generation of QA reports.

Methods:

The quality assurance program (System 1) for three independent ALS services in a rural/suburban area and the QA program (System 2) for a nearby urban ALS service were compared. Data recorded included the training level and number of hours per year devoted exclusively to QA activities by different personnel. The annual costs for other aspects of the QA systems and apportioned salary costs for time spent on QA work were recorded.

Results:

System 1, a computer-based system, utilized 1,116 hours per year of personnel time and required [US]$17,662 in total costs per year (average cost per run reviewed of $4.38). System 2 (a manual system) utilized 569 hours per year of personnel time and had an annual cost of [US]$8,361 (or $2.15 per run reviewed). System 1 generated 852 reports per year (21 % of runs) about non-compliance with protocols or charting deficiencies. System 2 generated 284 reports per year (7.3% of runs) for similar events.

Conclusions:

Either a computer-based or “manual” system for QA of prehospital ALS services can be utilized. A computer-based system requires more personnel time and is more expensive, but generates more reports per year than does the manual system. A computer-based system more readily can retrieve run report data for further review.

Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 303 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1993

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. Holroyd, BR, Knopp, R, Kallsen, G: Medical control: Quality assurance in prehospital care. JAMA 1986;256:1027–1031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Soler, JM, Montes, MF, Egol, AB et al. : The ten-year malpractice experience of a large urban EMS system. Ann Emerg Med 1985;14:982–985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Goldberg, RJ, Zautcke, JL, Koenigsburg, MD et al. : A review of prehospital care litigation in a large metropolitan EMS system. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:557–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Gabriel, EJ: Developing a QA program. Emerg Med Serv 1992:11:56–60,71.Google Scholar
5. Dernocoeur, J: Positive impact with run reviews. JEMS 1989;4:127–130.Google Scholar
6. Ryan, J: Quality Assurance in Emergency Medical Services Systems. In: Kuehl, AE, ed. EMS Medical Directors' Handbook. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1989:213–229.Google Scholar
7. Polsky, SS, Weigand, JV: Quality assurance in emergency medical service systems. Emerg Med Clin NA 1990;8:75–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Dick, T, Craig, B: Everybody owns it—Setting up a peer-driven chart audit. JEMS 1989;14:88–91.Google Scholar
9. Polsky, SS, editor. Continuous Quality Improvement in EMS. American College of Emergency Physicians, Dallas, 1992; p 352.Google Scholar
10. Swor, RA, editor. Quality Management in Prehospital Care. Mosby-Year Book Inc., St. Louis, 1993; p 254.Google Scholar
11. Dick, T, Craig, B: Everybody still owns—The peer-based chart audit, revisited. JEMS 1990;15:44–46.Google ScholarPubMed
12. Johnson, JC: Quality assurance in EMS. In: Roush, WR, ed. Principles of EMS Systems. Dallas: ACEP, 1989; pp 135–142.Google Scholar
13. Swor, RA, Hoelzer, M: A computer-assisted quality assurance audit in a multiprovider EMS system. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:286–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Pointer, JE, Osur, MA: EMS quality assurance: A computerized incident reporting system. J Emerg Med 1987;5:513–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Stewart, RD, Burgman, J, Cannon, GM, Paris, PM: A computer-assisted quality assurance system for an emergency medical service. Ann Emerg Med 1985;14:25–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Zavada, CA: Quality assurance: The effects of a prehospital data system on patient care. J Amer Med Rec Assoc 1982;53:89–96.Google ScholarPubMed
17. Holliman, CJ, Wuerz, RC, Meador, SA: Medical command errors in an urban ALS system. Ann Emerg Med 1992;21:347–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar