Article Text

PDF
AMPDS categories: are they an appropriate method to select cases for extended role ambulance practitioners?
  1. J T Gray1,
  2. A Walker2
  1. 1
    Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (South), Rotherham, UK
  2. 2
    Yorkshire Ambulance Service and Consultant in Emergency Medicine and Pre-Hospital Care, Mid Yorkshire Trust, Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Wakefield, UK
  1. Dr J T Gray, Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (South), Fairfields, Moorgate Road, Rotherham S60 2BQ, UK; james.gray{at}yas.nhs.uk

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the correlation between the AMPDS prioritisation category at dispatch and the use of alternative clinical dispatch using data from an emergency care practitioner (ECP) service dispatching on likely clinical need.

Methods: Data for a 12-month period were reviewed for all 999 calls seen by an ECP and comparison was made between AMPDS code/category and outcome of the patient.

Results: 3955 cases were reviewed with all but two AMPDS code groups represented. All categories showed alternative pathways to the emergency department used by ECPs: category A, 36%; category B, 52%; category C, 44%.

Conclusions: Clinically directed dispatch for ECPs allows utilisation of alternative pathways across all AMPDS categories, suggesting that AMPDS alone is not a good predictor of potential for avoiding emergency department attendance and possible hospital admission.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding: None.

  • Competing interests: None.

  • Ethics approval: No ethics approval was required for this study.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Primary survey
    Malcolm Woollard