↓ Skip to main content

Solo emergency care by a physician assistant versus an ambulance nurse: a cross-sectional document study

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Solo emergency care by a physician assistant versus an ambulance nurse: a cross-sectional document study
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0279-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anneke Bloemhoff, Lisette Schoonhoven, Arjan J. L. de Kreek, Pierre M. van Grunsven, Miranda G. H. Laurant, Sivera A. A. Berben

Abstract

This study compares the assessment, treatment, referral, and follow up contact with the dispatch centre of emergency patients treated by two types of solo emergency care providers in ambulance emergency medical services (EMS) in the Netherlands: the physician assistant (PA), educated in the medical domain, and the ambulance registered nurse (RN), educated in the nursing domain. The hypothesis of this study was that there is no difference in outcome of care between the patients of PAs and RNs. In a cross-sectional document study in two EMS regions we included 991 patients, treated by two PAs (n = 493) and 23 RNs (n = 498). The inclusion period was October 2010-December 2012 for region 1 and January 2013-March 2014 for region 2. Emergency care data were drawn from predefined and free text fields in the electronic patient records. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. We used χ (2) and Mann-Whitney U tests to analyse for differences in outcome of care. Statistical significance was assumed at a level of P <0.05. Patients treated by PAs and RNs were similar with respect to patient characteristics. In general, diagnostic measurements according to the national EMS standard were applied by RNs and by PAs. In line with the medical education, PAs used a medical diagnostic approach (16 %, n = 77) and a systematic physical exam of organ tract systems (31 %, n = 155). PAs and RNs provided similar interventions. Additionally, PAs consulted more often other medical specialists (33 %) than RNs (17 %) (χ (2)  = 35.5, P <0.0001). PAs referred less patients to the general practitioner or emergency department (50 %) compared to RNs (73 %) (χ (2)  = 52.9, P <0.0001). Patient follow up contact with the dispatch centre within 72 h after completion of the emergency care on scene showed no variation between PAs (5 %) and RNs (4 %). In line with their medical education, PAs seemed to operate from a more general medical perspective. They used a medical diagnostic approach, consulted more medical specialists, and referred significantly less patients to other health care professionals compared to RNs. While the patients of the PAs did not contact the dispatch centre more often afterwards.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 38%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 34%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 8 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 02 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,123,566
of 13,955,826 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#106
of 874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,072
of 261,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,955,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 261,222 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them