The development of emergency medical services benefit score: a European Delphi study

Anssi Heino, Lasse Raatiniemi, Timo Iirola, Merja Meriläinen, Janne Liisanantti, Miretta Tommila, Collaboration Group, Andreas Krüger (Medlem af forfattergruppering), Fabrice Dami (Medlem af forfattergruppering), Didier Moens (Medlem af forfattergruppering), Espen Fevang (Medlem af forfattergruppering), Heini Harve-Rytsälä (Medlem af forfattergruppering), Helena Jäntti (Medlem af forfattergruppering), Jouni Nurmi (Medlem af forfattergruppering), Kristin Tønsager (Medlem af forfattergruppering), Leif Rognås (Medlem af forfattergruppering), Marius Rehn (Medlem af forfattergruppering), Patrick Schober (Medlem af forfattergruppering), Per P. Bredmose (Medlem af forfattergruppering), Peter Martin Hansen (Medlem af forfattergruppering)Peter Temesvari, Søren Mikkelsen, Thomas W. Lindner, Troels Martin Hansen, Anna Nikula, Anne-Mari Kantanen, Antti E. Lindgren, Heli Salmi, Karri Kirjasuo, Marjut Varpula, Matti Reinikainen, Nanneli Paalasmaa, Outi Peltoniemi, Teemu Luoto, Vesa Lund, Ville Jalkanen

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstrakt

Background
The helicopter emergency services (HEMS) Benefit Score (HBS) is a nine-level scoring system developed to evaluate the benefits of HEMS missions. The HBS has been in clinical use for two decades in its original form. Advances in prehospital care, however, have produced demand for a revision of the HBS. Therefore, we developed the emergency medical services (EMS) Benefit Score (EBS) based on the former HBS. As reflected by its name, the aim of the EBS is to measure the benefits produced by the whole EMS systems to patients.

Methods
This is a four-round, web-based, international Delphi consensus study with a consensus definition made by experts from seven countries. Participants reviewed items of the revised HBS on a 5-point Likert scale. A content validity index (CVI) was calculated, and agreement was defined as a 70% CVI. Study included experts from seven European countries. Of these, 18 were prehospital expert panellists and 11 were in-hospital commentary board members.

Results
The first Delphi round resulted in 1248 intervention examples divided into ten diagnostic categories. After removing overlapping examples, 413 interventions were included in the second Delphi round, which resulted in 38 examples divided into HBS categories 3–8. In the third Delphi round, these resulted in 37 prehospital interventions, examples of which were given revised version of the score. In the fourth and final Delphi round, the expert panel was given an opportunity to accept or comment on the revised scoring system.

Conclusions
The former HBS was revised by a Delphi methodology and EBS developed to represent its structural purpose better. The EBS includes 37 exemplar prehospital interventions to guide its clinical use.

Trial registration The study permission was requested and granted by Turku University Hospital (decision number TP2/010/18).
OriginalsprogEngelsk
Artikelnummer151
TidsskriftScandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
Vol/bind29
Antal sider9
ISSN1757-7241
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 16. okt. 2021

Fingeraftryk

Dyk ned i forskningsemnerne om 'The development of emergency medical services benefit score: a European Delphi study'. Sammen danner de et unikt fingeraftryk.

Citationsformater