The development of emergency medical services benefit score: a European Delphi study
-
Published:2021-10-16
Issue:1
Volume:29
Page:
-
ISSN:1757-7241
-
Container-title:Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med
Author:
Heino AnssiORCID, Raatiniemi Lasse, Iirola Timo, Meriläinen Merja, Liisanantti Janne, Tommila Miretta, Krüger Andreas, Dami Fabrice, Moens Didier, Fevang Espen, Harve-Rytsälä Heini, Jäntti Helena, Nurmi Jouni, Tønsager Kristin, Rognås Leif, Rehn Marius, Schober Patrick, Bredmose Per P., Hansen Peter Martin, Temesvari Peter, Mikkelsen Søren, Lindner Thomas W., Hansen Troels Martin, Nikula Anna, Kantanen Anne-Mari, Lindgren Antti E., Salmi Heli, Kirjasuo Karri, Varpula Marjut, Reinikainen Matti, Paalasmaa Nanneli, Peltoniemi Outi, Luoto Teemu, Lund Vesa, Jalkanen Ville,
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The helicopter emergency services (HEMS) Benefit Score (HBS) is a nine-level scoring system developed to evaluate the benefits of HEMS missions. The HBS has been in clinical use for two decades in its original form. Advances in prehospital care, however, have produced demand for a revision of the HBS. Therefore, we developed the emergency medical services (EMS) Benefit Score (EBS) based on the former HBS. As reflected by its name, the aim of the EBS is to measure the benefits produced by the whole EMS systems to patients.
Methods
This is a four-round, web-based, international Delphi consensus study with a consensus definition made by experts from seven countries. Participants reviewed items of the revised HBS on a 5-point Likert scale. A content validity index (CVI) was calculated, and agreement was defined as a 70% CVI. Study included experts from seven European countries. Of these, 18 were prehospital expert panellists and 11 were in-hospital commentary board members.
Results
The first Delphi round resulted in 1248 intervention examples divided into ten diagnostic categories. After removing overlapping examples, 413 interventions were included in the second Delphi round, which resulted in 38 examples divided into HBS categories 3–8. In the third Delphi round, these resulted in 37 prehospital interventions, examples of which were given revised version of the score. In the fourth and final Delphi round, the expert panel was given an opportunity to accept or comment on the revised scoring system.
Conclusions
The former HBS was revised by a Delphi methodology and EBS developed to represent its structural purpose better. The EBS includes 37 exemplar prehospital interventions to guide its clinical use.
Trial registration The study permission was requested and granted by Turku University Hospital (decision number TP2/010/18).
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine,Emergency Medicine
Reference17 articles.
1. Murphy A, Wakai A, Walsh C, et al. Development of key performance indicators for prehospital emergency care. Emerg Med J. 2016;33:286–92. 2. Saviluoto A, Björkman J, Olkinuora A, et al. The first seven years of nationally organized helicopter emergency medical services in Finland—the data from quality registry. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2020;28(1):66. 3. McLean SA, Maio RF, Spaite DW, et al. Emergency medical services outcomes research: evaluating the effectiveness of prehospital care. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2009;6(sup 2):S52–6. 4. Raatiniemi L, Mikkelsen K, Fredriksen K, et al. Do pre-hospital anaesthesiologists reliably predict mortality using the NACA severity score? A retrospective cohort study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;57(10):1253–9. 5. Raatiniemi L, Liisanantti J, Tommila M, et al. Evaluating helicopter emergency medical missions: a reliability study of the HEMS benefit and NACA scores. Acta Anesthesiol Scand. 2017;61:557–65.
|
|