Table 3. Prehospital Diversion of Low-acuity Patients.
Author (Year) | Design | Population | Intervention | Effect on ED Use | Effect on Non-ED Use |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Schaefer et al. (2002)25 | Cohort study with matched historical controls United States August 2000–January 2001 |
Two EMS Intervention group: 1,016 patients Control (historical) group: 2,617 patients |
Low-acuity patients in the intervention group were offered an alternate care sources (clinic or home care) rather than ED use by the EMS staff | There was 7% fewer ED use by the intervention group compared to the control group (44.6% vs. 51.8%) (p = 0.001) | Clinic use: there was 3.5% more clinic use by the intervention group compared to the control group (8% vs. 4.5%) (p = 0.001) No transport (home care): there was 3.7% more home care (no transport) by the intervention group compared to the control group (47.4% vs. 4.5) (p = 0.043) |
Snooks et al. (2004)26 | Cluster randomized controlled trial United Kingdom 6 months |
Two EMS. Intervention group: 409 patients Control group: 425 patients |
Low-acuity patients in the intervention group were transported to a MIU by the EMS staff | There was 2.8% fewer ED use by the intervention group compared to the control group (74.1% vs. 76.9%) | MIU use: there was 1.3% more MIU use by the intervention group compared to the control group (10% vs. 8.7%) |
MIU = minor injuries unit.