» Articles » PMID: 35980404

Caregiver Perceptions Regarding Alternative Emergency Medical Services Dispositions for Children: A Cross-Sectional Survey Analysis

Overview
Specialty Emergency Medicine
Date 2022 Aug 18
PMID 35980404
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Emergency medical services (EMS) systems have developed alternative disposition processes for patients (including leaving the patient at the scene, using taxis, and transporting to clinics) vs taking patients directly to an emergency department (ED). Studies show that patients favorably support these alternative options but have not included the perspectives of caregivers of children. Our objective was to describe caregivers' views about these alternative disposition processes and analyze whether caregiver support is associated with sociodemographic factors.

Methods: We surveyed a convenience sample of caregivers in a pediatric ED. We asked caregivers 15 questions based on a previously validated survey. We then conducted logistic regressions to determine whether sociodemographic factors were associated with levels of support.

Results: We enrolled 241 caregivers. The median age of their children was five years. The majority of respondents were non-Hispanic Black (57%) and had public insurance (65%). We found that a majority of respondents supported all alternative EMS disposition options. The overall level of agreement for survey questions ranged from 51-93%. We grouped questions by theme: non-transport; alternative destinations; communication with EMS physician; communication with primary care physician and sharing records; restricted EMS role; and shared decision-making. Regression analyses for each theme found that race/ethnicity, public insurance, and patient age were not significantly associated with the level of support.

Conclusion: Most caregivers were supportive of alternative EMS disposition options for children with low-acuity complaints. Support did not vary significantly by respondent race/ethnicity, public insurance status, or patient age.

References
1.
Oulasvirta J, Salmi H, Kuisma M, Rahiala E, Laaperi M, Harve-Rytsala H . Outcomes in children evaluated but not transported by ambulance personnel: retrospective cohort study. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2019; 3(1):e000523. PMC: 6830473. DOI: 10.1136/bmjpo-2019-000523. View

2.
Williams J, Bachman M, Lyons M, Currie B, Brown L, Jones A . Improving Decisions About Transport to the Emergency Department for Assisted Living Residents Who Fall. Ann Intern Med. 2017; 168(3):179-186. DOI: 10.7326/M17-0969. View

3.
Shah M, Davis C, Bauer C, Arnold J . Preferences for EMS transport and pediatric emergency department care. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2008; 12(2):169-75. DOI: 10.1080/10903120801907059. View

4.
Munjal K, Carr B . Realigning reimbursement policy and financial incentives to support patient-centered out-of-hospital care. JAMA. 2013; 309(7):667-8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.211273. View

5.
Duong H, Herrera L, Moore J, Donnelly J, Jacobson K, Carlson J . National Characteristics of Emergency Medical Services Responses for Older Adults in the United States. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017; 22(1):7-14. PMC: 5760278. DOI: 10.1080/10903127.2017.1347223. View