First author year (ref) | Country & sample size | Study design | Study aim | Triage protocol to determine eligibility for alternate route of care | Description of alternate route of care | Findings | Concluding evidence (and level of support) | Level of Evidence + |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Blodgett 2020 [25] | UK n = 5283 | Pilot data linkage of retrospective patient data | To determine feasibility linking data to assess differences in patients conveyed directly to ED and those referred to a GP referral scheme | Paramedic Pathfinder (protocol tool outlining alternate routes of care) | Referral to partner GP providers | – Patients were more likely to be referred to GP if they were: i. women ii. older iii. Lower priority at dispatch. – 22% of referred patients presented and 13% were admitted to ED w/i 30 days. – There was no difference in hospital outcomes between GP-referred and directly conveyed groups. | Positive support – GP referral scheme provides a safe alternative path of care and does not increase risk of poor outcomes. – Recommendation for a large-scale study to provide evidence-based recommendations for changes to EMS care pathways. | 3 |
Ebben 2019 [26] | Netherlands n = 426 | Retrospective observational study | To describe characteristics of non-conveyance ambulance incidents | National protocol for EMS decisions | Referral to GP/medical specialist | – 31.1% of patients in a 12-month period were not conveyed. – 36.6% of non-conveyed patients were referred to GP and 6.1% to medical specialist. | Inconclusive support – A significant number of ambulance visits end in non-conveyance. – Note, differences between those conveyed, referred and left at home were not examined. | 6 |
Krumperman 2005 [27] | USA n = 2143 | Retrospective cohort | To compare patient satisfaction and referral adherence in two systems: i. “evaluate, treat and refer” ii. “telephone triage and referral” | No description of triage process | Referral to: i. primary care provider ii. urgent care centre | – Patients evaluated and referred by paramedic were less likely to follow instructions than those referred by telephone [odds ratio: 0.31 (0.14–0.69)]. – Patients were highly satisfied with the alternate route of care. | Positive support – Systems that use both pre-ambulance telephone triage and on-scene referral pathways can help avoid unnecessary ED visits. | 4 |
Larsson 2017 [28] | Sweden n = 394 | Prospective cohort study compared with a matched retrospective control group | To examine pre-hospital assessment of non-urgent patients, and investigate outcomes of different levels of care | Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System (RETTS) | - Consulted with GP to decide alternate route: i. primary home healthcare supervision ii. transportation to primary healthcare unit | – Intervention group resulted in: i. decreased ED conveyance (17.4%; 53.1%) ii. no difference in transport to primary care unit (8.7%; 10.4%) iii. Reduced on-scene ambulance time (87 min; 94 min) iv. decreased hospital admissions (11.4%; 25.6%) v. no additional secondary transport w/i 48 h (7.9%; 8.0%). | Positive support – Collaboration between ambulance nurses and GPs can improve appropriate level of care for non-urgent patients and safely decrease unnecessary ED conveyance. | 3 |
Magnusson 2016 [29] | Sweden n = 529 | Retrospective observational study | To describe characteristics, assessments, and routes of care of low priority patients (as assessed by dispatcher) | RETTS | Referral to: i. primary care appointment ii. community nurse iii. Mobile psychiatric or social care team. | – Compared to ED-conveyed patients, patients who were referred or given self-care advice: i. were younger ii. required a shorter job time. – Of those referred or left at home, 19% (visited ED within 72 h; half of these were admitted and a further half of those admitted required intervention/treatment). | Mixed support – Single-responder nurse can safely triage to the appropriate level of care, providing more effective use of emergency services. – Note that the study did not solely consider a group of referred patients (e.g. combined with self-care patients) so conclusions specific to referrals cannot be made. | 4 |
Magnusson 2020 [30] | Sweden n = 6712 | Prospective cohort | To assess patient characteristics and evaluate appropriateness of: i. initial triage and; ii. non-transport decisions | RETTS- Adults | Referral to: i. primary care; ii. social or home care | – Compared to ED-conveyed patients, non-conveyed patients were more likely: i. to be younger ii. to be women iii. have no medical history iv. have better vital signs v. to have been lower priority at initial dispatch. – 10% of non-conveyed patients were admitted to ED within 72 h (1% considered time-critical). | Mixed support – Defining patient characteristics that may help initial assessment. – Improved assessment tools, appropriate use of full triage and better education is necessary. | 4 |
Newton 2013 [31] | UK n = 481 | Prospective cohort | To evaluate if paramedics can safely use Paramedic Pathfinder to direct patients into alternate routes of care | Paramedic Pathfinder (protocol tool outlining alternate routes of care) | – Two alternate routes: i. community care pathway (referral to ambulance GP) ii. transport to urgent care centre | – There was high agreement in decision-making between expert senior medical practitioners and ambulance clinicians. – Sensitivity (95%) and specificity (58%) of the tool were sufficient. | Positive support – Ambulance clinicians can successfully use Paramedic Pathfinder to identify patients that do not require ED care. – The potential benefits of using the tool fully depend on provision of suitable community alternatives. | 4 |
O’Cathain 2018 [32] | UK i. n = 49 interviews ii. n = 615,815 calls iii. n = 20 interviews iv. n = 42,796 non-conveyed incidents | Mixed methods including: i. paramedic, manager, commissioner interviews ii. ambulance dispatch data iii. Qualitative telephone advice data iv. linked ambulance, hospital and mortality data | To understand differences in non-conveyance between ambulance services | Different triage systems in different services; no description of on-scene triage process | Alternative routes of care include referrals to: i. GP out-of-hours service (face to face or via telephone) ii. pharmacy iii. MIU iv. rgent care centre v. social worker vi. psychiatric pathways vii. Community services (home attendance) | – Non-conveyance to ED was facilitated by: i. formal referral pathways ii. informal relationships with local services iii. Organisational facilitation of connectivity between ambulance service and other emergency and urgent care services. – Ambulance trusts with higher rates of non-conveyance: i. had higher skilled paramedics ii. better valued training/skill of these skilled paramedics iii. Better organizational support iv. lower ED rates within 3 days of non-conveyed incident. | Positive support – Non-conveyance variation between ambulance services is due to: i. staff skill (e.g. advanced paramedics) ii. perceived value of advanced paramedics iii. Perceived risk adverse views of senior management iv. commissioning of services. – Standardisation of successful processes between ambulance services could reduce unwarranted differences in non-conveyance rates. | 4 |
Pickstone 2019 [33] | UK n = 1084 | Retrospective audit of referral services | To determine if referral service reduces ED attendances | No description of triage process | – Referral to @home team (which offers 25 acute in-home clinical care pathways) | – 755 (72%) referrals (including ambulance, community services and acute settings) over a 3-month period were accepted, with an estimated 397 ED attendances prevented. – This reduced total number of ED attendances by 0.3%. | Low support – The @home referral service reduces ED attendances by a small amount. – Investment of local health services does not have a sufficient impact on service delivery. | 4 |
Schaefer 2002 [34] | USA n = 1016 in intervention n = 2617 in control | Prospective cohort study compared with a matched retrospective control cohort | To evaluate if EMTs can correctly triage patients alternate care destinations | Two criteria: i. non-urgent severity code ii. one of 24 diagnosis codes | Referral to: i. urgent care centres ii. walk-in clinics iii. GP practices accepting walk-in patients | – Intervention group resulted in: i. increased clinic care (8.0%;4.5%) ii. decreased ED conveyance (44.6%; 51.8%). – Patients reported high satisfaction. | Positive support – Alternate care destinations can safely reduce ED visits and provide satisfactory care. – Further investigation of ways to ensure appropriate care of non-urgent patients is needed. | 3 |
Schmidt 2000 [35] | USA n = 1300 | Prospective cohort study with linked retrospective EMS chart review | To evaluate if emergency medical technicians can safely apply protocols to assign transport options | Series of triage protocols for categories of complaints (e.g. musculoskeletal injuries) | Referral to primary care provider | – There was no difference in classification of transport decision between EMTs and first responders (e.g. fire departments). – 3-11% of patients that were determined not to need ambulance had a critical medical event. – Based on occurrence of critical events, protocol sensitivity was high (95%) and specificity low (33%). | Low support – A better triage tool or improved triage adherence is required for EMTs to appropriately triage patients to alternate care routes. | 4 |
Schmidt 2001 [36] | USA n = 1300 (same sample as above) | Prospective cohort study with linked retrospective hospital chart review | To evaluate if emergency medical technicians can safely apply protocols to assign transport options | Series of triage protocols for categories of complaints (e.g. musculoskeletal injuries) | Referral to primary care provider | – 9% (13/140) of patients who were diverted away from ED were under triaged. – Patients with psychiatric complaints and dementia are at higher risk of under triage. | Mixed support – Protocols must be created and refined to minimise undertriage rates and ensure correct care pathways for patients. | 4 |
Snooks 2004 [37] | UK n = 409 in intervention n = 425 in control | Cluster randomised controlled trial and semi-structured interviews | To i. evaluate effectiveness of direct transport of patients to Minor Injury Unit (MIU) ii. describe factors that impact MIU use through interviews with ambulance crews | Protocol outlining 23 minor injuries eligible for transportation to MIU | Transportation to an MIU | – Alternate transportation scheme: i. did not increase non-ED conveyance in intervention group (25.9%; 23.1%) ii. decreased job cycle time, time to treatment and time in unit compared to ED iii. Improved patient’s rating of care. – Ambulance crews reported that location, patient needs, job times, improved service delivery and handover encouraged use of MIU. | Positive support – Despite underuse of MIUs, there are no adverse consequences for correct use and many potential benefits. | 2 |
Snooks 2004 [38] | UK n = 251 in intervention n = 537 in control | Phase 1: Protocol development Phase 2: Prospective cohort with matched control group | To develop and evaluate ‘Treat and Refer’ protocols | Treat & Refer protocols; training delivered to intervention crews (2-day course) | Referral to community based services (GP, district nurse, etc.) | – Referral scheme: i. did not increase non-conveyance in intervention group (37.1%; 36.3%) ii. improved documentation iii. Increased patient satisfaction iv. increased job times v. yielded safety concerns (5.4% of non-conveyed patients were admitted to ED w/i 14 days). | Mixed support – Referral scheme did not reduce unnecessary ED conveyance, although patient satisfaction was improved. – There were some concerns with the safety of referral protocols and further research is needed. | 3 |
Tohira 2016 [39] | Australia n = 67,387 | Assessment of past patient care records | To evaluate if paramedics can safely identify patients who can be managed in the community | Ordinal triage scale to determine acuity; no clinical guidelines to determine transport | Referral to health services in the community | – 4.8% of ED-transported patients were identified as potentially suitable for community-care. – 53.6% of these were admitted to hospital after direct ED conveyance. – Patients identified as suitable for community care were more likely to require subsequent ambulance request, ED visit and hospitalisation within 24 h than those who were not. | Low support – Paramedics were unable to accurately and safely triage patients to non-ED alternatives; this approach is high risk and requires further evaluation. | 4 |
Verma 2018 [40] | Canada n = 1851 | Retrospective cohort study | To examine associations between paramedic home care referrals and use of services (911 emergency call, ED, home care) | No formal triage criteria | Referral to community services via Community Care Access Centres | - Referrals reduced 911 emergency calls by 10% and ambulance transport to ED by 7%. | Positive support – Paramedics can successfully refer patients to community care access centres. – This has promising benefits for reducing future emergency care access including reduced emergency calls and ED conveyances by ambulance | 4 |
Vicente 2014 [41] | Sweden n = 410 in intervention n = 396 in control | Randomized controlled trial | To evaluate feasibility and safety of alternate transport to geriatric care | Decision support tools for 11 predefined conditions | Transportation to: i. geriatric care iv. community emergency care centre | – 20% of patients were transported to alternate route of care. – 6.7% of non-conveyed patients required transfer to ED w/i 72 h. | Positive support – Ambulance nurses can appropriately triage to alternate routes of care. – Such schemes can prevent inappropriate use of the ED and improve care of older adults. | 2 |
Villarreal 2017 [42] | UK n = 23,395 | Audit of routine ambulance data | Semi-structured paramedic interviews | Triage criteria covers 19 specific incident types | Referral via GP to: i. intermediate care teams ii. social services iii. Community hospitals iv. referral to patient’s own registered GP | – 78% of those who were referred to GP via telephone were not transported to hospital. Patients were more likely to be referred to GP if they were: i. women ii. older – assessed by GP face-to-face. | Positive support – Collaboration between paramedics and GP can reduce unnecessary ED transfers. – Recommendation for follow-up of hospital outcome and use of services in subsequent days to assess overall impact and safety of scheme. | 4 |