We applaud Newton et al[1] in their efforts developing the Paramedic Pathfinder tools. We feel that supporting paramedics in decision making regarding non-conveyance and use of alternative referral pathways is vital in meeting the challenges facing modern pre-hospital care, and appreciate their efforts in empowering pre-hospital staff to safely make decisions regarding such patients. However we remained unconvinced that protocolising the decision making process alone will improve the ability of pre-hospital clinicians to make the best use available resources to provide optimal clinical outcomes.
Protocolising referral decisions is not a new concept. Snooks et al[2] investigated a protocolised approach to patients being diverted to a minor injury unit over the emergency department, and discovered no increase in the number of patients referred to an alternative point of care. Conversley, Mason et al[3] and Gray and Walker[4] identified that paramedics when given extended training in assessment, treatment and diagnostic skills were able to safely reduce attendance at the emergency department, while Clesham et al[5] showed that ambulance staff are able to correctly identify most patients that could be diverted away from the emergency department, without the need for a strict protocolised approach, if sufficient governance is in place to support them in making these decisions.
We commend the safe approach taken by the authors in retrospectively applying the tool to patients seen by North West Ambulance Service staff. However we are concerned that this may not be generalisable to ambulance staff in other areas of the country. Recent performance data[6] demonstrated that as of April 2014 NWAS were the poorest performing Trust in the country for emergency department conveyance and calls closed via telephone triage. We would like to see the Pathfinder tools retrospectively applied to patients seen by pre-hospital clinicians in other areas of the country before stating that they categorically reduce hospital admissions, as the effect of the tools may be weakened - or even detrimental - when applied to Trusts performing stronger against these metrics. Additionally, where the patient had not been conveyed or referred to another agency, there was no follow up in the study to determine if this was a safe and appropriate thing to do. It would seem vital to ensure that the patients that the tool recommends for non-conveyance were not discharged in error.
In attempting to be easily applied by all front-line staff, the tools also fail to account for the grade of clinician making the clinical decision. As already stated, improved training allows paramedics to avoid ED admissions more often[3-5], so it would be important to establish if this triage tool performs equally well for each grade of clinician. One would presume that the sensitivity and specificity of a clinician making the same decision without the tool should increase as their clinical grade becomes more senior, but this increased experience and knowledge risks being over-ridden by the use of a rigid protocol unless some flexibility is built in. Additionally, the tool makes use of the Pre-Hospital Early Warning Score (PHEWS) to filter out patients at risk. As with similar track-and-trigger protocols, this fails to consider patients with baseline "abnormal" physiology, nor does it allow for normal paediatric physiology, despite Paramedic Pathfinder being recommended for use in anyone over the age of five. Strictly applying PHEWS further reduces the clinician's autonomy in deciding what they feel is best for their patient.
Although we welcome the efforts of Newton et al in developing a tool to assist paramedics in making such clinical decisions, we are concerned that the Paramedic Pathfinder tool risks reducing highly trained and experienced pre-hospital professionals to a flowchart, with no scope to take account of a patient's holistic needs or wishes. When providing increased training and skills to front-line staff has been shown to just as effectively reduce ED attendance safely, this paper provides no compelling evidence that increased reliance on rigid and inflexible protocols instead will achieve a better outcome for patients. We feel that Paramedic Pathfinder will become a useful tool in providing clinicians with a safety net when making decisions regarding use of alternative referral pathways, especially when used by less qualified pre-hospital practitioners, but this can only be achieved in concert with improved training and increased clinical autonomy for pre-hospital practitioners, and the tool needs to be validated in a national setting before widespread implementation can be supported.
James Goulding, Paramedic, Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust.
Dr Nick Plummer, Academic foundation doctor, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
[1] Newton, M., Tunn, E., Moses, I., et al. 2013. Clinical navigation for beginners: the clinical utility and safety of the Paramedic Pathfinder. Emerg Med J Published Online First: 7 October 2013.
[2] Snooks, H., Foster, T., et al. 2004. Results of an evaluation of the effectiveness of triage and direct transportation to minor injuries units by ambulance crews. Emerg Med J , 21(1), 105-111
[3] Mason, S., Knowles, E., et al. 2007. Effectiveness of paramedic practitioners in attending 999 calls from elderly people in the community: cluster randomised controlled trial. Brit Med J, 335(7626), 919.
[4] Gray, J. T. and Walker, A. (2008). Avoiding admissions from the ambulance service: a review of elderly patients with falls and patients with breathing difficulties seen by emergency care practitioners in South Yorkshire. Emerg Med J , 25(3), 168-171.
[5] Clesham K, Mason S, Gray J et al. 2008. Can emergency medical service staff predict the disposition of patients they are transporting? Emerg Med J 25(10): 691-4
[6] AACE (2014) Measuring Patient Outcomes: Clinical Quality Indicators [online at: http://aace.org.uk/national-performance/ accessed 19/06/2014]
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
Protocolising referral decisions is not a new concept. Snooks et al[2] investigated a protocolised approach to patients being diverted to a minor injury unit over the emergency department, and discovered no increase in the number of patients referred to an alternative point of care. Conversley, Mason et al[3] and Gray and Walker[4] identified that paramedics when given extended training in assessment, treatment and diagnostic skills were able to safely reduce attendance at the emergency department, while Clesham et al[5] showed that ambulance staff are able to correctly identify most patients that could be diverted away from the emergency department, without the need for a strict protocolised approach, if sufficient governance is in place to support them in making these decisions.
We commend the safe approach taken by the authors in retrospectively applying the tool to patients seen by North West Ambulance Service staff. However we are concerned that this may not be generalisable to ambulance staff in other areas of the country. Recent performance data[6] demonstrated that as of April 2014 NWAS were the poorest performing Trust in the country for emergency department conveyance and calls closed via telephone triage. We would like to see the Pathfinder tools retrospectively applied to patients seen by pre-hospital clinicians in other areas of the country before stating that they categorically reduce hospital admissions, as the effect of the tools may be weakened - or even detrimental - when applied to Trusts performing stronger against these metrics. Additionally, where the patient had not been conveyed or referred to another agency, there was no follow up in the study to determine if this was a safe and appropriate thing to do. It would seem vital to ensure that the patients that the tool recommends for non-conveyance were not discharged in error.
In attempting to be easily applied by all front-line staff, the tools also fail to account for the grade of clinician making the clinical decision. As already stated, improved training allows paramedics to avoid ED admissions more often[3-5], so it would be important to establish if this triage tool performs equally well for each grade of clinician. One would presume that the sensitivity and specificity of a clinician making the same decision without the tool should increase as their clinical grade becomes more senior, but this increased experience and knowledge risks being over-ridden by the use of a rigid protocol unless some flexibility is built in. Additionally, the tool makes use of the Pre-Hospital Early Warning Score (PHEWS) to filter out patients at risk. As with similar track-and-trigger protocols, this fails to consider patients with baseline "abnormal" physiology, nor does it allow for normal paediatric physiology, despite Paramedic Pathfinder being recommended for use in anyone over the age of five. Strictly applying PHEWS further reduces the clinician's autonomy in deciding what they feel is best for their patient.
Although we welcome the efforts of Newton et al in developing a tool to assist paramedics in making such clinical decisions, we are concerned that the Paramedic Pathfinder tool risks reducing highly trained and experienced pre-hospital professionals to a flowchart, with no scope to take account of a patient's holistic needs or wishes. When providing increased training and skills to front-line staff has been shown to just as effectively reduce ED attendance safely, this paper provides no compelling evidence that increased reliance on rigid and inflexible protocols instead will achieve a better outcome for patients. We feel that Paramedic Pathfinder will become a useful tool in providing clinicians with a safety net when making decisions regarding use of alternative referral pathways, especially when used by less qualified pre-hospital practitioners, but this can only be achieved in concert with improved training and increased clinical autonomy for pre-hospital practitioners, and the tool needs to be validated in a national setting before widespread implementation can be supported.
James Goulding, Paramedic, Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust.
Dr Nick Plummer, Academic foundation doctor, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
[1] Newton, M., Tunn, E., Moses, I., et al. 2013. Clinical navigation for beginners: the clinical utility and safety of the Paramedic Pathfinder. Emerg Med J Published Online First: 7 October 2013.
[2] Snooks, H., Foster, T., et al. 2004. Results of an evaluation of the effectiveness of triage and direct transportation to minor injuries units by ambulance crews. Emerg Med J , 21(1), 105-111
[3] Mason, S., Knowles, E., et al. 2007. Effectiveness of paramedic practitioners in attending 999 calls from elderly people in the community: cluster randomised controlled trial. Brit Med J, 335(7626), 919.
[4] Gray, J. T. and Walker, A. (2008). Avoiding admissions from the ambulance service: a review of elderly patients with falls and patients with breathing difficulties seen by emergency care practitioners in South Yorkshire. Emerg Med J , 25(3), 168-171.
[5] Clesham K, Mason S, Gray J et al. 2008. Can emergency medical service staff predict the disposition of patients they are transporting? Emerg Med J 25(10): 691-4
[6] AACE (2014) Measuring Patient Outcomes: Clinical Quality Indicators [online at: http://aace.org.uk/national-performance/ accessed 19/06/2014]
Conflict of Interest:
None declared