Skip to main content
PMC home page
Quality & Safety in Health Care logoLink to Quality & Safety in Health Care
. 2004 Oct;13(5):363–373. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2003.008003

Safety of telephone consultation for "non-serious" emergency ambulance service patients

J Dale 1, S Williams 1, T Foster 1, J Higgins 1, H Snooks 1, R Crouch 1, C Hartley-Sharpe 1, E Glucksman 1, S George 1
PMCID: PMC1743899  PMID: 15465940

Abstract

Objective: To assess the safety of nurses and paramedics offering telephone assessment, triage, and advice as an alternative to immediate ambulance despatch for emergency ambulance service callers classified by lay call takers as presenting with "non-serious" problems (category C calls).

Design: Data for this study were collected as part of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial reported elsewhere. The intervention arm of the trial comprised nurse or paramedic telephone consultation using a computerised decision support system to assess, triage, and advise patients whose calls to the emergency ambulance service had been classified as "non-serious" by call takers applying standard priority despatch criteria. A multidisciplinary expert clinical panel reviewed data from ambulance service, accident and emergency department, hospital inpatient and general practice records, and call transcripts for patients triaged by nurses and paramedics into categories that indicated that despatch of an emergency ambulance was unnecessary. All cases for which one or more members of the panel rated that an emergency ambulance should have been despatched were re-reviewed by the entire panel for an assessment of the "life risk" that might have resulted.

Setting: Ambulance services in London and the West Midlands, UK.

Study population: Of 635 category C patients assessed by nurses and paramedics, 330 (52%) cases that had been triaged as not requiring an emergency ambulance were identified.

Main outcome measures: Assessment of safety of triage decisions.

Results: Sufficient data were available from the routine clinical records of 239 (72%) subjects to allow review by the specialist panel. For 231 (96.7%) sets of case notes reviewed, the majority of the panel concurred with the nurses' or paramedics' triage decision. Following secondary review of the records of the remaining eight patients, only two were rated by the majority as having required an emergency ambulance within 14 minutes. For neither of these did a majority of the panel consider that the patient would have been at "life risk" without an emergency ambulance being immediately despatched. However, the transcripts of these two calls indicated that the correct triage decision had been communicated to the patient, which suggests that the triage decision had been incorrectly entered into the decision support system.

Conclusions: Telephone advice may be a safe method of managing many category C callers to 999 ambulance services. A clinical trial of the full implementation of this intervention is needed, large enough to exclude the possibility of rare adverse events.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (161.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Billittier A. J., Moscati R., Janicke D., Lerner E. B., Seymour J., Olsson D. A multisite survey of factors contributing to medically unnecessary ambulance transports. Acad Emerg Med. 1996 Nov;3(11):1046–1052. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1996.tb03352.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown E., Sindelar J. The emergent problem of ambulance misuse. Ann Emerg Med. 1993 Apr;22(4):646–650. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)81841-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen J. C., Bullard M. J., Liaw S. J. Ambulance use, misuse, and unmet needs in a developing emergency medical services system. Eur J Emerg Med. 1996 Jun;3(2):73–78. doi: 10.1097/00063110-199606000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dale J., Green J., Reid F., Glucksman E., Higgs R. Primary care in the accident and emergency department: II. Comparison of general practitioners and hospital doctors. BMJ. 1995 Aug 12;311(7002):427–430. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7002.427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dale J., Higgins J., Williams S., Foster T., Snooks H., Crouch R., Hartley-Sharpe C., Glucksman E., Hooper R., George S. Computer assisted assessment and advice for "non-serious" 999 ambulance service callers: the potential impact on ambulance despatch. Emerg Med J. 2003 Mar;20(2):178–183. doi: 10.1136/emj.20.2.178. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fink A., Kosecoff J., Chassin M., Brook R. H. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health. 1984 Sep;74(9):979–983. doi: 10.2105/ajph.74.9.979. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gardner G. J. The use and abuse of the emergency ambulance service: some of the factors affecting the decision whether to call an emergency ambulance. Arch Emerg Med. 1990 Jun;7(2):81–89. doi: 10.1136/emj.7.2.81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gibson G. Measures of emergency ambulance effectiveness: unmet need and inappropriate use. JACEP. 1977 Sep;6(9):389–392. doi: 10.1016/s0361-1124(77)80002-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Holm O., Berlac P. A., Jensen P. K., Sillesen I. B., Fog T., Lausten G. S. Relevansen af alarm 112-opkald blandt skadestueklientel i amtssygehuset i herlevs optagelsesområde. Ugeskr Laeger. 1997 Mar 17;159(12):1749–1751. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kongelf E., Lereim I., Hald K. Rekvirering av ambulanse til akutt syke og skadede. Misbrukes akuttambulansetjenesten? Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1989 Nov 30;109(33):3447–3451. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lattimer V., George S., Thompson F., Thomas E., Mullee M., Turnbull J., Smith H., Moore M., Bond H., Glasper A. Safety and effectiveness of nurse telephone consultation in out of hours primary care: randomised controlled trial. The South Wiltshire Out of Hours Project (SWOOP) Group. BMJ. 1998 Oct 17;317(7165):1054–1059. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7165.1054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lattimer V., Sassi F., George S., Moore M., Turnbull J., Mullee M., Smith H. Cost analysis of nurse telephone consultation in out of hours primary care: evidence from a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2000 Apr 15;320(7241):1053–1057. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7241.1053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Little G. F., Barton D. Inappropriate use of the ambulance service. Eur J Emerg Med. 1998 Sep;5(3):307–311. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lomas J. Words without action? The production, dissemination, and impact of consensus recommendations. Annu Rev Public Health. 1991;12:41–65. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pu.12.050191.000353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Morris D. L., Cross A. B. Is the emergency ambulance service abused? Br Med J. 1980 Jul 12;281(6233):121–123. doi: 10.1136/bmj.281.6233.121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. O'Cathain A., Munro J. F., Nicholl J. P., Knowles E. How helpful is NHS direct? Postal survey of callers. BMJ. 2000 Apr 15;320(7241):1035–1035. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7241.1035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. O'Leary C., Bury G., McCabe M., Kelly C., McGoldrick F., Ward F. Ambulance-user analysis in an accident and emergency department. Ir Med J. 1987 Dec;80(12):422–423. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Palazzo F. F., Warner O. J., Harron M., Sadana A. Misuse of the London ambulance service: How much and why? J Accid Emerg Med. 1998 Nov;15(6):368–370. doi: 10.1136/emj.15.6.368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Pennycook A. G., Makower R. M., Morrison W. G. Use of the emergency ambulance service to an inner city accident and emergency department--a comparison of general practitioner and '999' calls. J R Soc Med. 1991 Dec;84(12):726–727. doi: 10.1177/014107689108401211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Rademaker A. W., Powell D. G., Read J. H. Inappropriate use and unmet need in paramedic and nonparamedic ambulance systems. Ann Emerg Med. 1987 May;16(5):553–556. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(87)80684-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Richards J. R., Ferrall S. J. Inappropriate use of emergency medical services transport: comparison of provider and patient perspectives. Acad Emerg Med. 1999 Jan;6(1):14–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1999.tb00088.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Scott E. A., Black N. When does consensus exist in expert panels? J Public Health Med. 1991 Feb;13(1):35–39. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Snooks Helen, Williams Susan, Crouch Robert, Foster Theresa, Hartley-Sharpe Chris, Dale Jeremy. NHS emergency response to 999 calls: alternatives for cases that are neither life threatening nor serious. BMJ. 2002 Aug 10;325(7359):330–333. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7359.330. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Thompson F., George S., Lattimer V., Smith H., Moore M., Turnbull J., Mullee M., Thomas E., Bond H., Glasper A. Overnight calls in primary care: randomised controlled trial of management using nurse telephone consultation. BMJ. 1999 Nov 27;319(7222):1408–1408. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7222.1408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality & safety in health care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES