↓ Skip to main content

Merger of two dispatch centres: does it improve quality and patient safety?

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Merger of two dispatch centres: does it improve quality and patient safety?
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13049-017-0383-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandre Moser, Annette Mettler, Vincent Fuchs, Walter Hanhart, Claude-François Robert, Vincent Della Santa, Fabrice Dami

Abstract

Dispatch centres (DCs) are considered an essential but expensive component of many highly developed healthcare systems. The number of DCs in a country, region, or state is usually based on local history and often related to highly decentralised healthcare systems. Today, current technology (Global Positioning System or Internet access) abolishes the need for closeness between DCs and the population. Switzerland went from 22 DCs in 2006 to 17 today. This study describes from a quality and patient safety point of view the merger of two DCs. The study analysed the performance (over and under-triage) of two medical DCs for 12 months prior to merging and for 12 months again after the merger in 2015. Performance was measured comparing the priority level chosen by dispatcher and the severity of cases assessed by paramedics on site using the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) score. We ruled that NACA score > 3 (injuries/diseases which can possibly lead to deterioration of vital signs) to 7 (lethal injuries/diseases) should require a priority dispatch with lights and siren (L&S). While NACA score < 4 should require a priority dispatch without L&S. Over-triage was defined as the proportion of L&S dispatches with a NACA score < 4, and under-triage as the proportion of dispatches without L&S with a NACA > 3. Prior to merging, Dispatch A had a sensitivity/specificity regarding the use of lights and sirens and severity of cases of 86%/48% with over- and under-triage rates of 78% and 5%, respectively. Dispatch B had sensitivity and specificity of 92%/20% and over- and under-triage rates of 84% and 7%, respectively. After they merged, global sensitivity/specificity reached 87%/67%, and over- and under-triage rates were 71% and 3%, respectively CONCLUSIONS: A part the potential cost advantage achieved by the merger of two DCs, it can improve the quality of services to the population, reducing over- and under-triage and the use of lights and sirens and therefore, the risk of accidents. This is especially the case when a DC with poor triage performance merges with a high-performing DC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Master 7 15%
Other 5 11%
Librarian 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Engineering 3 6%
Decision Sciences 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 12 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,210,555
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#643
of 1,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,294
of 310,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#19
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.