Refusal to Travel in the National Ambulance Service. A Patient Care Report examination
- Resource Type
- Authors
- Sasha Selby; Alan Watts; Eamonn Byrne; Paul Gallen
- Source
- Irish Journal of Paramedicine, Vol 3, Iss 2 (2018)
- Subject
- lcsh:R5-920
Quality management
business.industry
media_common.quotation_subject
Vital signs
Information quality
medicine.disease
paramedic
Patient care
Documentation
transport
Ambulance service
Complaint
medicine
Quality (business)
ambulance
Medical emergency
non-conveyance
business
lcsh:Medicine (General)
media_common
- Language
- English
IntroductionEvery patient has the right to refuse treatment and, or transport (RTT) to hospital (1). The National Ambulance Service (NAS) has operated under a clinical guidance document that requires an assessment of patient capacity and a baseline amount of data to be gathered on every patient to facilitate the patient making an informed decision (2,3). An increase in the rate of non-conveyance of patients and refusal to travel calls as well as an increasing number of complaints prompted a quality improvement initiative based on improving and facilitating a shared decision-making model.AimFor patients who RTT, to establish a baseline quality of information collected and recorded on a Patient Care Report.MethodsAll NAS incidents closed with a refusal of treatment or transport, from 1st Jan 2017 to 9th November 2017 were identified from National Emergency Operation Centre (NEOC). A random selection of 75 Patient care reports (52 Paper and 23 Electronic) were identified and reviewed. Compliance with the refusal to travel guidance document was measured.Results31% of paper PCR’s reviewed were missing a complete set of vital signs. An average of 48.4 % (Median 48.4% Range 36.5% to 61.5%) were missing a complete second set of vital signs. 17.3% of combined forms were missing the patient’s chief complaint and 38.7% had no practitioner clinical impression entered. 24% had no capacity assessment completed.ConclusionClinical information recorded by NAS staff did not meet the clinical guidance document requirements. It is impossible to assess what information was given to a patient to facilitate a shared decision-making model. The quality of NAS documentation can be improved for patients who refuse to travel.