OBJECTIVE: To compare chief complaints of the Medical Priority Dispatch System in terms of the match between dispatch priority and patient condition. METHODS: statistic was used to compare chief complaints by false omission rate (percentage of Priority 2 or 3 dispatches that were time-critical) and positive predictive value (percentage of Priority 1 dispatches that were time-critical). We also reported sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: There were 211 473 cases of dispatch. Of 99 988 cases with Priority 2 or 3 dispatch, 467 (0.5%) were time-critical. Convulsions/seizures and breathing problems were highlighted as having more false negatives (time-critical despite Priority 2 or 3 dispatch) than expected from the overall false omission rate. Of 111 485 cases with Priority 1 dispatch, 6520 (5.8%) were time-critical. Our analysis highlighted chest pain, heart problems/automatic implanted cardiac defibrillator, unknown problem/collapse, and headache as having fewer true positives (time-critical and Priority 1 dispatch) than expected from the overall positive predictive value. CONCLUSION: Scope for reducing under-triage and over-triage of ambulance dispatch varies between chief complaints of the Medical Priority Dispatch System. The highlighted chief complaints should be considered for future research into improving ambulance dispatch system performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ball et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: