Against all advice: an analysis of out-of-hospital refusals of care.

Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Annals of Emergency Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.33). 12/2003; 42(5):689-96. DOI: 10.1016/S0196064403005249
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We examine the characteristics of patients involved in out-of-hospital emergency medical services (EMS) incidents that result in refusal of care and determine the rates of subsequent EMS, emergency department (ED), and inpatient care, as well as death within 7 days.
Utah statewide EMS data identifying refusals of care were probabilistically linked to Utah statewide ED, inpatient, and death certificate data within 7 days of the initial EMS refusals for 1996 to 1998. Refusals were defined as incidents in which field treatment or transport was refused and did not include incidents in which EMS providers deemed care or transport unnecessary.
Of 277244 EMS incidents, 14109 (5.1%) resulted in refusals of care. For all age groups, motor vehicle crash dispatches resulted in the highest rate of refusal of care, ranging from 8.0% to 11.7%. Slightly more than 3% of patients involved in a refusal of care incident had a subsequent EMS dispatch within a week. One fifth of the patients involved in EMS refusals of care had a subsequent ED visit. Less than 2% of the EMS refusal patients were hospitalized; hospitalization was highest among children younger than 3 years and adults older than 64 years. Twenty-five adults died within a week of refusing EMS care, of whom 19 (76.0%) were older than 64 years.
Refusal of care incidents are a small segment of all EMS incidents. They arise from a variety of situations, and the risk for missed intervention may be minimal.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective. Elderly patients are becoming an increasingly larger proportion of our population, and there is a paucity of data regarding the epidemiology of geriatric patients refusing transport. Treatment refusal rates range from 5% to 15% in many studies. This study sought to test the hypothesis that geriatric patients constituted an increasing proportion of those persons refusing prehospital transport. Methods. This study was a retrospective analysis of data from a query of a large urban EMS service. Results. There were a total of 22,347 adult transport refusals recorded during the 16-month study period. Multivariate logistic regression incorporating covariates for sex, race, season, chief complaint, metropolitan region, and whether any treatment occurred prior to transport refusal confirmed the increasing likelihood of Period 2 patients being geriatric, as compared with Period 1 (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.14-1.35, Wald P < .001). Conclusion. This data shows that despite controlling for these covariates, patients refusing transport in the second period of this study were nearly 25% more likely to be geriatric as compared to those in the initial 8 months of the study.
    02/2012; 2012:905976. DOI:10.1155/2012/905976
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Older adults are at greater risk than younger adults for life-threatening injury after motor vehicle collision (MVC). Among those with life-threatening injury, older adults are also at greater risk of not being transported by emergency medical services (EMS) to an emergency department. Despite the greater risk of serious injury and non-transportation among older adults, little is known about the relationship between patient age and EMS transportation rates for individuals experiencing MVC. We describe transport rates across the age-span for adults seen by EMS after experiencing MVC using data reported to the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles between 2008 and 2011. Of all adults aged 18 years and older experiencing MVC and seen by EMS (n = 484,310), 36.3% (n = 175,768) were transported to an emergency department. Rates of transport for individuals seen by EMS after MVC increased only a small amount with increasing patient age. After adjusting for potential confounders of the relationship between patient age and the decision to transport (patient gender, patient race, air bag deployment, patient trapped or ejected, and injury severity), transport rates were: age 18–64 = 36.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35.9–36.2%); age 65–74 = 36.6% (95% CI, 36.0–37.1%); age 75–84 = 37.3% (95% CI, 36.5–38.1%), and age 85–94 = 38.2% (95% CI, 36.7–39.8%). In North Carolina between 2008 and 2011, the transportation rate was only slightly higher for older adults than for younger adults, and most older adults experiencing MVC and seen by EMS were not transported to the emergency department. These findings have implications for efforts to improve the sensitivity of criteria used by EMS to determine the need for transport for older adults experiencing MVC.
    Accident Analysis & Prevention 10/2014; 73:373–379. DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2014.09.026 · 1.87 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper describes the methodology of a large emergency medical services (EMS) data linkage research project currently under way in the statewide EMS system of New South Wales, Australia. The paper is intended to provide the reader with an understanding of how linkage techniques can be used to facilitate EMS research. This project, the Australian Prehospital Outcomes Study of Longitudinal Epidemiology (APOStLE) Project, links data from six statewide sources (computer-assisted dispatch, EMS patient health care reports, emergency department data, inpatient data, and two death registries) to enable researchers to examine the patient's entire journey through the health care system, from the emergency 0-0-0 call to the emergency department and inpatient setting, through to discharge or death, for approximately 2.6 million patients transported by the Ambulance Service of New South Wales to emergency departments between June 2006 and July 2009. Manual, deterministic, and probabilistic data linkages are described, and potential applications of linked data in EMS research are outlined.
    Prehospital Emergency Care 06/2012; 16(4):505-12. DOI:10.3109/10903127.2012.689929 · 1.81 Impact Factor