4.0 Article

Effectiveness of paramedic practitioners in attending 999 calls from elderly people in the community: cluster randomised controlled trial

期刊

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 335, 期 7626, 页码 919-922

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39343.649097.55

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate the benefits of paramedic practitioners assessing and, when possible, treating older people in the community after minor injury or illness. Paramedic practitioners have been trained with extended skills to assess, treat, and discharge older patients with minor acute conditions in the community. Design Cluster randomised controlled trial involving 56 clusters. Weeks were randomised to the paramedic practitioner service being active (intervention) or inactive (control) when the standard 999 service was available. Setting A large urban area in England. Participants 3018 patients aged over 60 who called the emergency services (n=1549 intervention, n=1469 control). Main outcome measures Emergency department attendance or hospital admission between 0 and 28 days; interval from time of call to time of discharge; patients' satisfaction with the service received. Results Overall, patients in the intervention group were less likely to attend an emergency department (relative risk 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.75) or require hospital admission within 28 days (0.87, 0.81 to 0.94) and experienced a shorter total episode time (235 v 278 minutes, 95% confidence interval for difference -60 minutes to -25 minutes). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to report being highly satisfied with their healthcare episode (relative risk 1.16, 1.09 to 1.23). There was no significant difference in 28 day mortality (0.87, 0.63 to 1.21). Conclusions Paramedics with extended skills can provide a clinically effective alternative to standard ambulance transfer and treatment in an emergency department for older patients with acute minor conditions. Trial registration ISRCTN27796329.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据