...
首页> 外文期刊>Emergency medicine journal: EMJ >A pragmatic quasi-experimental multi-site community intervention trial evaluating the impact of Emergency Care Practitioners in different UK health settings on patient pathways (NEECaP Trial).
【24h】

A pragmatic quasi-experimental multi-site community intervention trial evaluating the impact of Emergency Care Practitioners in different UK health settings on patient pathways (NEECaP Trial).

机译:一项实用的准实验性多站点社区干预试验,评估了英国不同健康状况下的急诊医生对患者路径的影响(NEECaP试验)。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Emergency Care Practitioners (ECPs) are operational in the UK in a variety of emergency and urgent care settings. However, there is little evidence of the effectiveness of ECPs within these different settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of ECPs on patient pathways and care in different emergency care settings. METHODS: A pragmatic quasi-experimental multi-site community intervention trial comprising five matched pairs of intervention (ECP) and control services (usual care providers): ambulance, care home, minor injury unit, urgent care centre and GP out-of-hours. The main outcome being assessed was patient disposal pathway following the care episode. RESULTS: 5525 patient episodes (n=2363 intervention and n=3162 control) were included in the study. A significantly greater percentage of patients were discharged by ECPs working in mobile settings such as the ambulance service (percentage diff. 36.7%, 95% CI 30.8% to 42.7%) and care home service (36.8%, 26.7% to 46.8%). In static services such as out-of-hours (-17.9%, -30.8% to -42.7%) and urgent care centres (-11.5%, -18.0% to -5.1%), a significantly greater percentage of patients were discharged by usual care providers. CONCLUSIONS: ECPs have a differential impact compared with usual care providers dependent on the operational service settings. Maximal impact occurs when they operate in mobile settings when care is taken to the patient. In these settings ECPs have a broader range of skills than the usual care providers (eg, paramedic), and are targeted to specific clinical groups who can benefit from alternative pathways of care (such as older people who have fallen). Trial Registration No ISRCTN22085282 (Controlled trials.com).
机译:背景:紧急护理从业者(ECP)在英国在各种紧急和紧急护理环境中运行。但是,很少有证据表明在这些不同的环境中ECP的有效性。这项研究的目的是评估在不同的急诊环境中,ECP对患者途径和护理的影响。方法:一项务实的准实验性多站点社区干预试验,包括五对匹配的干预(ECP)和控制服务(常规护理提供者):救护车,护理院,轻伤病房,紧急护理中心和全职员工。评估的主要结果是护理事件后的患者处置途径。结果:5525例患者发作(n = 2363干预和n = 3162对照)包括在研究中。在行动场所工作的ECP出院的患者比例要高得多,例如急救服务(百分比差异为36.7%,95%CI为30.8%至42.7%)和家庭护理服务(36.8%,26.7%至46.8%)。在非工作时间(-17.9%,-30.8%至-42.7%)和紧急护理中心(-11.5%,-18.0%至-5.1%)等静态服务中,通过日常护理人员。结论:与常规护理提供者相比,ECP具有不同的影响,具体取决于操作服务设置。当它们在患者身上进行护理时,如果它们在移动环境中运行,则会产生最大的影响。在这些情况下,ECP具有比通常的护理提供者(例如,护理人员)更广泛的技能,并且针对可以从替代护理途径中受益的特定临床人群(例如跌倒的老年人)。试用注册号ISRCTN22085282(受控trials.com)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号