Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:32:10.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physician In-field Observation of Prehospital Advanced Life Support Personnel: A Statewide Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Daniel W. Spaite ,
Terence D. Valenzuela  and
Harvey W. Meislin
Daniel W. Spaite*
Affiliation:
Arizona Emergency Medicine Research Center, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.
Terence D. Valenzuela
Affiliation:
Arizona Emergency Medicine Research Center, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.
Harvey W. Meislin
Affiliation:
Arizona Emergency Medicine Research Center, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.
*
1501 N. Campbell Ave., Tucson, AZ, 85724USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Study Hypothesis:

Direct physician observation of advanced life support (ALS) personnel is rare in a demographically diverse state.

Study Population:

Twenty ALS agencies from throughout Arizona.

Methods:

A board-certified emergency physician performed on-site interviews with the emergency medical services (EMS) supervisor of each agency to approximate the number of days per year that physicians observe ALS personnel in the field.

Results:

Only 11 agencies (55%) reported that physicians ever observed ALS personnel. Among all agencies, an estimated total of 84 observer-days occurred per year. The agencies staffed a total of 86 ALS units, resulting in an estimated 0.98 observer-days/unit/year (84/86). On the average, it took 3.4 ALS personnel to staff a given unit over time and the probability that an ALS provider would be on a unit on any given day was 0.29 (1/3.4). The probability of a given provider being observed during one year was approximately 0.29 (0.98 x 0.29). Thus, on the average, an ALS provider would be observed by a physician approximately once every 3.5 years (1/0.29). Among urban agencies, the “average” ALS provider would be observed once every 2.9 years. This compared to a likelihood of in-field observation of only once every 6.7 years for non-urban providers (p = .036).

Conclusions:

The skills of ALS providers in Arizona are observed by a physician in the field very infrequently. Although an uncommon occurrence in urban agencies, observation of non-urban ALS personnel occurs even less frequently. In addition, nearly one-half of the agencies surveyed never had a physician-observer. Although a variety of skills evaluation methods exist, it remains unclear whether any method is as useful as direct observation. Future investigations are needed to evaluate whether in-field physician observation impacts skills, patient care, or outcome in EMS systems.

Keywords

advanced life supportEMS physicianEMS systemsperformance evaluationnon-urbanphysician observerurban
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 299 - 302
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. Reines, D: The Emergence of Medical Control. In Kuehl, A: EMS Medical Directors' Handbook. St. Louis, MO, C. V. Mosby, pp 155–162, 1989.Google Scholar
2. Braun, O, Callaham, ML: Direct Medical Control. In Kuehl, A: EMS Medical Directors' Handbook. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1989, pp 175–212.Google Scholar
3. Stewart, RD: On-Line Medical Control. In Roush, WR, Aranosian, RD, Blair, TMH, Handal, KA, Kellow, RC, Stewart, RD (eds). Principles of EMS Systems. Dallas, TX, American College of Emergency Physicians, 1989, pp 95–108.Google Scholar
4. Pointer, J: The emergency physician and medical control in advanced life support. J Emerg Med 1985;3:31–55.Google Scholar
5. Braun, O, McCallion, R, Fazackerley, J: Characteristics of mid-sized urban EMS system. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:536–546.Google Scholar
6. Pepe, PE, Stewart, RD: The role of the physician in the prehospital setting. Ann Emerg Med 1986;15:1480–1483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Spaite, DW, Tse, DJ, Valenzuela, TD et al. : The impact of injury severity and prehospital procedures on scene time in victims of major trauma. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20:1299–1305.Google Scholar
8. Pons, PT, Honigman, B, Moore, EE et al. : Prehospital advanced trauma life support for critical penetrating wounds to the thorax and abdomen. J Trauma 1985;25:828–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Jacobs, L, Sinclair, A, Beiser, A et al. : Prehospital advanced life support: Benefits in trauma. J Trauma 1984;24:8–13.Google Scholar
10. Aprahamian, C, Thompson, B, Towne, J et al. : The effect of a paramedic system on mortality of major open intra-abdominal vascular trauma. J Trauma 1983;23:687–690.Google Scholar
11. Copass, MK, Oreskovich, MR, Bladegroen, MR et al. : Prehospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation of the critically injured patient. Am J Surg 1984;148:20–26.Google Scholar
12. Gold, CR: Prehospital advanced life support vs “scoop and run” in trauma management. Ann Emerg Med 1987;16:797–801.Google Scholar
13. Trunkey, D: Is ALS necessary for prehospital trauma care? J Trauma 1984;24:86–87.Google Scholar
14. Honigman, B, Rohweder, K, Moore, EE et al. : Prehospital advanced trauma life support for penetrating cardiac wounds. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:145–150.Google Scholar
15. Pons, PT, Moore, EE, Cusick, JM et al. : Prehospital venous access in an urban paramedic system—A prospective on-scene analysis. J Trauma 1988:28:1460–1463.Google Scholar
16. Spaite, DW, Valenzuela, TD, Meislin, HW et al. : Prospective validation of a new model for evaluating EMS systems by in-field observation of specific time intervals in prehospital care. Ann Emerg Med 1993:22:638–645.Google Scholar
17. Spaite, DW, Criss, EA, Valenzuela, TD et al. : A prospective evaluation of prehospital patient assessment by direct in-field observation: Failure of ALS personnel to measure vital signs. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1990;5:325–334.Google Scholar
18. Stewart, RD, Paris, PM, Heller, MB: Design of a resident in-field experience for an emergency medicine residency curriculum. Ann Emerg Med 1987;16:175–179.Google Scholar
19. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment: Rural Emergency Medical Services—Special Report, OTA-H-445. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1989.Google Scholar
20. Mueller, BA, Rivara, FP, Bergman, AB: Urban-rural location and the risk of dying in a pedestrian-vehicle collision. J Trauma 1988:28:91–94.Google Scholar
21. Vukov, LF, White, RD, Bachman, JW, et, al: New perspectives on rural EMT defibrillation. Ann Emerg Med 1988;17:318–321.Google Scholar
22. Pepe, PE: The impact of intense physician supervision on prehospital cardiac arrest outcome in an urban EMS system. Presented to the Fourth Annual Meeting of the National Association of EMS Physicians, June, 1988, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
23. Fowler, FJ Jr: Survey Research Methods. Beverly Hills, Sage Publications, 1984.Google Scholar
24. Converse, JM, Presser, S: Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-063. Beverly Hills: Sage publications, 1986.Google Scholar
25. Cox, BG, Cohen, SB: Methodological Issues for Health Care Surveys. New York, Marcel Dekker, 1985.Google Scholar
26. Cummings, SR, Strull, W, Nevitt, MC et al. : Planning the Measurements: Questionnaires. In: Hulley, SB, Cummings, SR (eds): Designing Clinical Research. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1988, pp 42–52.Google Scholar