↓ Skip to main content

Prehospital triage accuracy in a criteria based dispatch centre

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Emergency Medicine, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Prehospital triage accuracy in a criteria based dispatch centre
Published in
BMC Emergency Medicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12873-015-0058-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabrice Dami, Christel Golay, Mathieu Pasquier, Vincent Fuchs, Pierre-Nicolas Carron, Olivier Hugli

Abstract

Priority dispatch accuracy is a key issue in optimizing the match between patients' medical needs and pre-hospital resources. This study measures the accuracy of a Criteria Based Dispatch (CBD) system, by evaluating discrepancies between dispatch priorities and ambulance crews' severity evaluations. This is a retrospective study conducted from January 2011 to December 2011. We ruled that a National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (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 scores < 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 score > 3. There were 29,008 primary missions in 2011, 1122 were excluded. Of the 15,749 L&S missions, 12,333 patients had a NACA score < 4, leading to an over triage rate of 78 %; 561 missions out of 12,137 missions without L&S had a NACA score > 3, leading to an under triage rate of 4.6 %. Sensitivity was 86 % (95 % confidence interval: 85.6-86.4 %), specificity 48 % (47.4-48.6 %), positive predictive value 21.7 % (21.2-22.2 %), and negative predictive value 95.4 % (95.2-95.6 %). The rates of over triage and under triage in our CBD are 78 and 4.6 % respectively. The lack of consistent or universal metrics is perhaps the most important limitation in dispatch accuracy research. This is mainly due to the large heterogeneity of dispatch systems and prehospital emergency system.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 81 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 22%
Other 8 10%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 18%
Unspecified 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 17 21%

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 19 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,976,960
of 14,195,619 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#138
of 385 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,174
of 284,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#22
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,195,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 385 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 284,381 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.