Establishing consensus on emergency department interventions that could be conducted in sub-acute care settings for non-emergent paramedic transported visits: A RAND/UCLA modified Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Paramedic services are increasingly transporting patients with non-emergent conditions to the emergency department (ED) when primary healthcare facilities may be more beneficial for their care.(1,2) In Ontario, patients with non-emergent conditions account for 60% of all ambulance transported patients, of which 74% are discharged the same day.(3) Initiatives in health policy and research have not decreased paramedic transports for non-emergent ED visits; from 2014 to 2017 usage has increased by 12% (456 510 / 511 801) in Ontario.(4) Increasing ED visits have outpaced population growth in Ontario by more than double (13.6%, vs. 6.2% respectively)(5), suggesting utilization of ED’s has broadened. Broadened use of paramedic services by non-emergent patients and a legislative requirement to transport all patients to the ED regardless of acuity is exacerbating the problem.(6,7)

Redirecting non-emergent patients to sub-acute care centres instead of EDs may offer a feasible solution to prevent some non-emergent patient visits.(8) Patient redirection has been successful in Canada; a computer algorithm to direct non-emergent visits from ED to primary care centres not only left patients as satisfied with the care they received (84%), but was also described as a safe strategy (5.9% of 980 diverted patients had unexpected healthcare visits to the ED; none for severe complication).(9) Internationally, sub-acute centres such as urgent care clinics have reduced the likelihood of ED visits for lower acuity conditions, have shown that they can perform treatments equivalent to EDs for minor illnesses and traumatic injuries, and at a lower cost.(10–13) Redirection to sub-acute care centres by paramedics may have beneficial long-term implications by reducing paramedic transport consumption and can have higher cost effectiveness than transport to an acute centre ED.(14–17)

Evidence to support redirecting patients transported by paramedics to sub-acute centres is inconclusive, and international findings may not be generalizable across Canada.(18) Part of the difficulty arises from an absence of a suitable patient classification for examining which patients transported by paramedic services could have been potentially redirected.(17) Therefore, the objective of this study was to establish consensus on a set of ED interventions performed on non-emergent patients transported by paramedics that could be conducted in sub-acute healthcare centres.

METHODS

We used a three-stage RAND/UCLA modified Delphi study design to evaluate consensus on ED physician interventions that could be conducted in alternative sub-acute health centres. This methodology allowed us to assess a collective groups judgements on patient procedures and facilitate group discussion between rounds.(19) The CHERRIES reporting guideline was followed to report this study.(20)

RESULTS

We identified 150 of the most frequently recorded Canadian Classification for Health Interventions conducted on non-emergent patients transported by paramedic services to an ED using the NACRS database. These interventions represented 95.5% (1 239 998/1 319 388) of all interventions recorded in this NACRS cohort of Ontario ED patients in the study period. All 150 interventions were included in Round 1 of the RAND/UCLA modified Delphi exercise, the majority of interventions belonging to CCI sections 1, 2 and 3 (137 / 150; 91.3%).

A total of 25 physicians who met the selection criteria were invited to participate by email, 21 accepted and consented to participate. Collectively 20 experts completed Round 1 and constituted the Delphi expert committee for this study, and completed 100% of each questionnaire. Experts were recruited from October 13 to November 5, 2020, and the modified Delphi consensus rounds occurred between November 6 and December 19, 2020. Figure 1 shows the flow of recruitment and modified Delphi Rounds in the study.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Study course of recruitment and 2 rounds of the RAND/UCLA modified Delphi consensus exercise.

The majority of experts were male (70%) and reported their primary medical practice as emergency medicine (80%), with the remaining as family medicine (15%) or both (5%). The characteristics of the Delphi expert committee are shown in Table 1.

In Round 1, 139 interventions achieved a 70% consensus agreement amongst all experts (92.7%) for use in at least a single sub-acute healthcare centre. All interventions included in Round 1 were considered and rated by all 20 participating experts. The remaining 11 interventions which did not achieve consensus were included in Round 2, of which all were CCI section 1 interventions (i.e., physical/physiological therapeutic interventions). In Round 2, seven additional interventions reached consensus from experts for use in at least a single sub-acute healthcare centre, with the remaining four not reaching consensus in this study. Two of the experts that complete Round 1 did not complete round 2. Consensus results in the RAND/UCLA modified Delphi exercise are shown in summary by round and healthcare centre in Table 2.

Of ED interventions that achieved overall consensus, 103 (68.7%) were rated from experts for their suitability for a sub-acute healthcare centre. Of the 47 remaining, 43 interventions (28.7%) were rated as only appropriate for the ED, and four interventions did not reach consensus (2.6%). All 103 intervention were deemed suitable for an urgent care centre, of which 46 interventions were suitable for a walk-in medical centre, and 47 for a nurse practitioner-led clinic. Of interventions requiring diagnostic imaging (Section 3), all magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) imaging were identified as only suitable for the ED, while the remaining two imaging categories (x-ray, ultrasound) were all rated appropriate for urgent care centres. All interventions of CCI Sections 6, 7 and 8 were determined to be appropriate for sub-acute healthcare centres, and nearly all inventions of Section 2. The four interventions that did not receive consensus ranged in rating of 50-66% amongst expert agreement. All interventions receiving consensus for any of the three sub-acute healthcare centres are shown in Table 3, and results of the RAND/UCLA modified Delphi agreement ratings for all interventions are shown in Table 4 (Appendix).

Expert comments highlighted that their selections for healthcare centres were based the underlying assumption that the clinicians of the centres had adequate training and experience with a given intervention. Experts commented that interventions rated for ED suitability only, were largely evaluated that way based on concerns for patient safety if the procedure was unsuccessful. Interventions that did not receive consensus in Round 2 were identified as requiring an element of sedation and a second physician for safety and competence purposes, although this was not agreed upon by all. Some experts emphasized their ratings do not infer any direction for clinical guidance based solely on this study, as an intervention alone does not provide enough specific information to inform care planning without further contextualization.

Experts rated the majority of all interventions as suitable for urgent care centres. Their justification included the urgent care centre’s ability to be equipped with the resources required to conduct the interventions (e.g., diagnostic equipment, technicians trained to use the equipment). Comments suggested that walk-in medical centres and nurse practitioner-led clinics may not have access to the same diagnostic imaging recourses, leading experts to deter from selecting these centres as appropriate. Experts did not cite practitioner skill as a limiting factor in rating decisions; however, they did acknowledge some interventions are based on physician or practitioner preference. Some experts recommended there could be other centres that are more appropriate for psychological interventions (e.g., facilities that focus solely on mental health), but were not included in the study. The videoconference held between rounds 1 and 2 contributed insights into nurse practitioner-led clinics receiving more consensus on interventions than walk-in medical centres. Experts were also unsure if walk-in centres were staffed with a single clinician, whereas for nurse-practitioner clinics they felt were typically staffed with more than one, which led to an increased comfort with rating interventions that are more time-consuming or required extended monitoring.

INTERPRETATION

There is consensus by primary and emergency care physicians on what clinical interventions commonly performed in the ED for non-emergent paramedic transported patients are suitable for alternative sub-acute healthcare settings. Specifically, 68.7% of included ED interventions were rated as suitable for conduction in urgent care centres, 30.7% in walk-in medical centres and 31.3% for nurse-practitioner led clinics, while 2.6% did not receive consensus.

Our results are consistent with previous literature that suggests urgent care centres and similar sub-acute centres can be reasonable avenues for treatment of non-emergent patient conditions who would otherwise be directed to the ED.(11,24) There is an absence of evidence that measures the appropriateness of which ED interventions could be conducted in sub-acute settings, as most articles analyze patient conditions, diagnostics and medication administration.(11,12,25) Previous literature describes 13.7% to 27.1% of all ED patients could be safely managed by urgent care, however do not report which interventions were conducted.(11) Ample literature describes the use of sub-acute centres to offset ED use, however focus heavily on outcomes of patient satisfaction and cost avoidances(11,24), when quality of care, care received and simulation modeling may be more important indicators for supporting paramedics redirection models.(26,27)

The majority of all included interventions found to be appropriate for sub-acute centres acknowledges the confidence that study experts have in a sub-acute centres ability to conduct emergency department interventions. Of interventions that were rated for ED only, many required sedation practices, intensive monitoring, or advanced emergency physician skills. The four interventions that did not receive consensus all shared the same intervention procedure of using a reduction technique to treat an injury. Of Section 3 interventions involving diagnostic imaging, equipment was determined as the limiting factor (not injury site or physician interpretation).

An overarching goal of our study was to determine if consensus on which ED interventions could be performed elsewhere, such that an epidemiological patient classification could be constructed to inform redirection by paramedics. We recognize that interventions alone are insufficient considerations for such redirection programs. However, in combination with other indicators (e.g., contextualized patient features) and supports (e.g., education), knowledge of interventions suitable for sub-acute healthcare centers will support the construction of a patient classification model for paramedic-initiated redirection from the ED. Future research is required to incorporate additional patient and administrative information into a classification in order to provide contextualization before evaluating its validity for clinical guidance. The results of this study contribute evidence towards informing the circumstances (in part) in which paramedic service-based programs intended to support redirecting ED bound patients may be feasible and appropriate.

LIMITATIONS

An inherent limitation of using secondary administrative datasets is the completeness of the procedural fields. Our dataset included 63.7% completeness of the main interventions field in NACRS (1 319 388 / 2 070 260), to which this is expected as patients admitted to hospital may have their ED interventions recorded in the Discharge Abstract Database as opposed to NACRS. In other instances, there was no intervention completed during the visit, or the intervention was not recorded. Our cohort size remained large and is trustworthy based on our study objectives.

Individual judgements may be subjective given an expert’s own evaluation with safety in selecting healthcare centres. This limitation was minimized in the study design to include only physicians with adequate knowledge of emergency and primary care practices in Ontario, the Delphi committee contained a high number of experts, and a detailed description of each healthcare centre was provided. The findings of this study may not be generalizable in settings where payment structures for healthcare, accessibility to sub-acute care or ambulance availability are different. Additionally, our research was specific in terms of population (adult, non-emergent, ambulance) and only included ED interventions, without taking into consideration additional clinical details.

CONCLUSION

With a continued increase in the proportion of non-emergent or low acuity patients transported to EDs by paramedic services, it is important to explore features supporting redirection programs such that their impact on patient and ED utilization outcomes can be examined. A majority of ED interventions conducted by physicians on non-emergent patients transported by paramedic services were identified as suitable for conduction in sub-acute healthcare centres including urgent care centres, in walk-in medical centres and nurse practitioner-led clinics. While focusing on interventions alone has limitations, these results suggest there may be a patient population that may be suitable for redirection programs by paramedic services in Ontario as a way of countering the ED crisis. These results may contribute evidence to inform construction of a patient classification system for non-emergent patients for use by paramedic services that (a) could potentially be used to prevent ED visits and (b) better align paramedic services with patient needs. Future research is required to augment our findings with additional patient and hospital contextualization toward such a classification system.

Completing Interests

None declared.

Contributions

RPS and APC led the conceptualization of the study methodology. RPS designed the study, conducted the RAND/UCLA modified Delphi exercise, and drafted and revised the manuscript. WT, AW and LEG made contributions to the design of the study, methods, interpretation and manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript, approved the final version and agreed to act as guarantors.

Funding

The investigators received no specific funding for this study.

Ethics

This study received a research ethics board exemption waiver from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board; review reference 2020-11451-GRA.

APPENDIX