IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0106436.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER 1): Cluster Randomised Trial of Computerised Clinical Decision Support for Paramedics

Author

Listed:
  • Helen Anne Snooks
  • Ben Carter
  • Jeremy Dale
  • Theresa Foster
  • Ioan Humphreys
  • Philippa Anne Logan
  • Ronan Anthony Lyons
  • Suzanne Margaret Mason
  • Ceri James Phillips
  • Antonio Sanchez
  • Mushtaq Wani
  • Alan Watkins
  • Bridget Elizabeth Wells
  • Richard Whitfield
  • Ian Trevor Russell

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of Computerised Clinical Decision Support (CCDS) for paramedics attending older people who fall. Design: Cluster trial randomised by paramedic; modelling. Setting: 13 ambulance stations in two UK emergency ambulance services. Participants: 42 of 409 eligible paramedics, who attended 779 older patients for a reported fall. Interventions: Intervention paramedics received CCDS on Tablet computers to guide patient care. Control paramedics provided care as usual. One service had already installed electronic data capture. Main Outcome Measures: Effectiveness: patients referred to falls service, patient reported quality of life and satisfaction, processes of care. Safety: Further emergency contacts or death within one month. Cost-Effectiveness: Costs and quality of life. We used findings from published Community Falls Prevention Trial to model cost-effectiveness. Results: 17 intervention paramedics used CCDS for 54 (12.4%) of 436 participants. They referred 42 (9.6%) to falls services, compared with 17 (5.0%) of 343 participants seen by 19 control paramedics [Odds ratio (OR) 2.04, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.72]. No adverse events were related to the intervention. Non-significant differences between groups included: subsequent emergency contacts (34.6% versus 29.1%; OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.72); quality of life (mean SF12 differences: MCS −0.74, 95% CI −2.83 to +1.28; PCS −0.13, 95% CI −1.65 to +1.39) and non-conveyance (42.0% versus 36.7%; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.52). However ambulance job cycle time was 8.9 minutes longer for intervention patients (95% CI 2.3 to 15.3). Average net cost of implementing CCDS was £208 per patient with existing electronic data capture, and £308 without. Modelling estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year at £15,000 with existing electronic data capture; and £22,200 without. Conclusions: Intervention paramedics referred twice as many participants to falls services with no difference in safety. CCDS is potentially cost-effective, especially with existing electronic data capture. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Register ISRCTN10538608

Suggested Citation

  • Helen Anne Snooks & Ben Carter & Jeremy Dale & Theresa Foster & Ioan Humphreys & Philippa Anne Logan & Ronan Anthony Lyons & Suzanne Margaret Mason & Ceri James Phillips & Antonio Sanchez & Mushtaq Wa, 2014. "Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER 1): Cluster Randomised Trial of Computerised Clinical Decision Support for Paramedics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-14, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0106436
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106436
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106436
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106436&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0106436?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0106436. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.