Top

Systematic Reviews

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Emergency Medicine | Protocol

How can quality be measured within a physician-led Community Emergency Medical service? A scoping review protocol

Authors: Jamie Scott, Libby Thomas, Tony Joy, Paddy McCrossan

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Background

Quality measurement as part of quality improvement in healthcare is integral for service delivery and development. This is particularly pertinent for health services that deliver care in ways that differ from traditional practice. Community Emergency Medicine (CEM) is a novel and evolving concept of care delivered by services in parts of the UK and Ireland. This scoping review aims to provide a broad overview of how quality may be measured within services delivering CEM.

Methods and analysis

The methodology follows both the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). It is guided by recognised work of Arksey and O’Malley and the guidelines developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Several databases will be searched: MEDLINE, EMbase, EMcare, CINAHL, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and grey literature. Search terms have been developed by representatives within Community Emergency Medicine services. Two reviewers will independently screen eligible studies for final study selection. Results will be collected and analysed in descriptive and tabular form to illustrate the breadth of quality indicators that may be applicable to CEM services. This scoping review protocol has been registered with the Open Science Framework platform (osf.io/e7qxg).

Discussion

This is the first stage of a larger research study aimed at developing national quality indicators for CEM. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide a comprehensive review of quality indicators that could be used within CEM. The results will be mapped using a framework and identify gaps in the literature to help guide future-focused research.

Available only for authorised users

Covidence—an internet-based software program that facilitates independent collaboration among reviewers during the study selection process. This software will also identify and allow removal of duplicates and produce a schematic diagram of each of the selection stages.

Hanks A, Ramage L, Leech C. Community emergency medicine throughout the UK and Ireland: a comparison of current national activity. Emerg Med J. 2021;

Wilson MH, Habig K, Wright C, Hughes A, Davies G, Imray CH. Pre-hospital emergency medicine. Lancet. 2015;386(10012):2526–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00985-X.CrossRefPubMed

Blackmore TA. What is the role of paramedics in palliative and end of life care? Palliat Med. 2022 Mar;36(3):402–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163211073263.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Darzi A. Quality and the NHS Next Stage Review. Lancet. 2008;371(9624):1563–4.CrossRefPubMed

Nutbeam TMBM. ABC of Prehospital Emergency Medicine. Somerset, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated; 2013.

Joy T, et al. Community emergency medicine: taking the ED to the patient: a 12-month observational analysis of activity and impact of a physician response unit. Emerg Med J. 2020;37(9):530–9.CrossRefPubMed

Scott J, Moore N. Evaluation of a Community Emergency Medicine acute oncology pathway using 28-day follow-up. Emerg Med J. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-213028.

Mason SM. Physician response units: is taking care to the patient the right thing to do? Emerg Med J. 2020;37(9):528.CrossRefPubMed

Raleigh V, Foot C. Getting the measure of quality: Opportunities and challenges. The Kings Fund; 2010. p. 36.

10.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, R., MD. . Six Domains of Health Care Quality. . 2015 [cited 2022 15/02/2022]; Available from: https://www.ahrq.gov/talkingquality/measures/six-domains.html.

11.

Davies SM, et al. AHRQ Technical Reviews, in Refinement of the HCUP Quality Indicators. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2001.

12.

Fevang E, et al. The top five research priorities in physician-provided pre-hospital critical care: a consensus report from a European research collaboration. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011;19(1):57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Howard I, et al. Quality indicators for evaluating prehospital emergency care: a scoping review. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(1):43–52.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Haugland H, et al. Developing quality indicators for physician-staffed emergency medical services: a consensus process. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017;25(1):14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Garrison HG, et al. Emergency Medical Services Outcomes Project III (EMSOP III): The role of risk adjustment in out-of-hospital outcomes research. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40(1):79–88.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Maio RF, et al. Emergency Medical Services Outcomes Project (EMSOP) IV: pain measurement in out-of-hospital outcomes research. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40(2):172–9.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Spaite DW, et al. Emergency Medical Services Outcomes Project (EMSOP) II: Developing the foundation and conceptual models for out-of-hospital outcomes research. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;37(6):657–63.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Types of Health Care Quality Measures. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.

19.

Peters MDJ, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Peters MDJ, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synthesis. 2022;20(4)

21.

Goldenberg MJ. Defining "quality of care" persuasively. Theor Med Bioeth. 2012;33(4):243–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-012-9230-4.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Lumley HA, et al. A scoping review of pre-hospital technology to assist ambulance personnel with patient diagnosis or stratification during the emergency assessment of suspected stroke. BMC Emerg Med. 2020;20(1):30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. The Milbank quarterly. 1966;83(4):691–729.CrossRef

24.

Medicine, R.C.o.E., Improving quality indicators and system metrics for emergency departments in England. 2019: RCEM.

25.

Desharnais, S.I. The outcome model of quality. 2011.

26.

Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: How can quality be measured within a physician-led Community Emergency Medical service? A scoping review protocol
Authors: Jamie Scott
Libby Thomas
Tony Joy
Paddy McCrossan
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Emergency Medicine
Published in: Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02424-w

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

How can quality be measured within a physician-led Community Emergency Medical service? A scoping review protocol

Abstract

Background

Methods and analysis

Discussion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods and analysis

Discussion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Leveraging multisectoral approach to understand the determinants of childhood stunting in Rwanda: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The impact of DNA methylation as a factor of Adverse Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes (APBOs): a systematic review protocol

The SAFE procedure: a practical stopping heuristic for active learning-based screening in systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Effectiveness of gold nanoparticles in prevention and treatment of oral mucositis in animal models: a systematic review

Understanding and treating body image disturbances in eating disorders through body illusion interventions: a scoping review protocol

Assessing risk of bias in the meta-analysis of round 1 of the Health Care Innovation Awards