Perceptions and Use of Automated Hospital Outcome Data by EMS Providers: A Pilot Study
Michael Kaduce,Antonio Fernandez,Scott Bourn,Dustin Calhoun,Jefferson Williams,Mallory DeLuca,Heidi Abraham,Kevin Uhl,Brian Bregenzer,Baxter Larmon,Remle Crowe,Alison Treichel,J. Brent Myers
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.21175
2024-10-02
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
Abstract:Background: Our primary objective evaluated the perception of emergency medical service (EMS) providers' review of automated hospital outcome data. Secondarily, we assessed participation in outcome review as a means of microlearning to obtain continuing education (CE). Methods: From October–December 2023, three high-volume EMS systems participated in a three-part intervention with results evaluated using a mixed-methods approach. First, EMS providers (emergency medical technicians and paramedics) were invited, via their electronic health record (EHR), to complete a presurvey evaluating their perceptions of reviewing outcomes. Then, EMS providers were notified about the opportunity to earn CE via a microlearning intervention, offering Commission on Accreditation for Pre-Hospital Continuing Education (CAPCE)-approved CE hours for completion of outcome reviews and associated learning modules. Finally, EMS providers were invited to complete a post-survey mirroring the pre-survey. Qualitative analyses identified themes among open-ended responses. Quantitative analyses examined perceptions between pre- and post- surveys. Results: Of 843 providers contacted, 217 responded to the pre-survey (25.7%). The most endorsed rationale for reviewing outcomes included improving clinical knowledge (95%), improving patient care (94%), and knowing whether care made a difference (93%). Nearly all (91%) reported being more likely to review outcomes if CE were awarded. Among the 67 who completed the open-ended items, the three dominant themes included enhance personal confidence and competence (43%); acquire personal knowledge (39%); and operations (21%). Of 211 providers who participated in the intervention, 56 (27%) were awarded CE. A total of 152 providers responded to the post-survey, and the percentage who agreed that reviewing outcomes improves job satisfaction rose from 89% to 95% between pre- and post-surveys (P = 0.05). Conclusion: EMS providers supported the personal and professional development and patient care improvement of reviewing patients' outcomes with associated CE. Further study is warranted to evaluate the generalizability of these findings and the best user experience.
emergency medicine