We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The concept of the necessity of a good quality assurance (QA) plan for emergency medical services (EMS) is well-accepted; guidelines as how best to achieve this and how current systems operate have not been defined. The purpose of this study was to survey EMS systems to discover current methods used to perform medical control and QA and to examine whether the existence of an emergency medicine residency affected these components.
Methods:
A survey was mailed in 1989 to the major teaching hospitals associated with all of the emergency medicine residency programs (n = 79) and all other hospitals with greater than 350 beds within the 50 largest United States metropolitan areas (n = 172). If no response was received, a second request was sent in 1990. The survey consisted of questions concerning four general EMS-QA categories: 1) general information; 2) prospective; 3) immediate; and 4) retrospective medical control.
Results:
Completed surveys were received from 78.5% of residency and 50% of non-residency programs. The majority had an emergency medicine physician as medical director (80.1% vs 61.5%, p = .03). While both residency and non-residency hospitals participated in initial public and prehospital personnel education, academic programs were more likely to be involved in continuing medical education (98.2% vs 82.3%, p = .009). On-line (direct) supervision was more likely to be provided by residency institutions (96.4% vs 81.0%, p = .017) which was provided by a physician in 88.3%. Trip sheet review was utilized by 62.0% of non-residency and 75.5% of residency programs responding, and utilized the paramedic coordinator (44.5% vs 46.1%) or medical director (35.7% vs 34.5 %) primarily.
Conclusion:
This survey characterizes some of the current methods utilized nationwide in EMS-QA programs. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of these various methods, and to develop a model program.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.