↓ Skip to main content

Medical priority dispatch codes—comparison with National Early Warning Score

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Medical priority dispatch codes—comparison with National Early Warning Score
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0336-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marko Hoikka, Sami Länkimäki, Tom Silfvast, Tero I. Ala-Kokko

Abstract

In Finland, calls for emergency medical services are prioritized by educated non-medical personnel into four categories-from A (highest risk) to D (lowest risk)-following a criteria-based national dispatch protocol. Discrepancies in triage may result in risk overestimation, leading to inappropriate use of emergency medical services units and to risk underestimation that can negatively impact patient outcome. To evaluate dispatch protocol accuracy, we assessed association between priority assigned at dispatch and the patient's condition assessed by emergency medical services on the scene using an early warning risk assessment tool. Using medical charts, clinical variables were prospectively recorded and evaluated for all emergency medical services missions in two hospital districts in Northern Finland during 1.1.2014-30.6.2014. Risk assessment was then re-categorized as low, medium, or high by calculating the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) based on the patients' clinical variables measured at the scene. A total of 12,729 emergency medical services missions were evaluated, of which 616 (4.8%) were prioritized as A, 3193 (25.1%) as B, 5637 (44.3%) as C, and 3283 (25.8%) as D. Overall, 67.5% of the dispatch missions were correctly estimated according to NEWS. Of the highest dispatch priority missions A and B, 76.9 and 78.3%, respectively, were overestimated. Of the low urgency missions (C and D), 10.7% were underestimated; 32.0% of the patients who were assigned NEWS indicating high risk had initially been classified as low urgency C or D priorities at the dispatch. The present results show that the current Finnish medical dispatch protocol is suboptimal and needs to be further developed. A substantial proportion of EMS missions assessed as highest priority were categorized as lower risk according to the NEWS determined at the scene, indicating over-triage with the protocol. On the other hand, only a quarter of the high risk NEWS patients were classified as the highest priority at dispatch, indicating considerable under-triage with the protocol.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 15%
Student > Master 6 13%
Researcher 5 10%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 6 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 January 2017.
All research outputs
#4,265,009
of 8,854,945 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#395
of 648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,348
of 305,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#14
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,854,945 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 305,160 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.