The relationship between emergency medical services use and social service needs in a pediatric emergency department population

2022 ◽  
Vol 125 ◽  
pp. 105482
Author(s):  
H. Michelle Greene ◽  
Kathryn Maguire-Jack ◽  
Lauren Malthaner ◽  
Annie Truelove ◽  
Julie C. Leonard
2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 253-257
Author(s):  
Kristy Williamson ◽  
Robert Gochman ◽  
Francesca Bullaro ◽  
Bradley Kaufman ◽  
William Krief

1999 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 232-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Sapien ◽  
Lynne Fullerton ◽  
Lenora M. Olson ◽  
Kimberly J. Broxterman ◽  
David P. Sklar

1997 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth F. Mock ◽  
Keith D. Wrenn ◽  
Seth W. Wright ◽  
T. Chadwick Eustis ◽  
Corey M. Slovis

AbstractHypothesis:To determine the type and frequency of immediate unsolicited feedback received by emergency medical service (EMS) providers from patients or their family members and emergency department (ED) personnel.Methods:Prospective, observational study of 69 emergency medical services providers in an urban emergency medical service system and 12 metropolitan emergency departments. Feedback was rated by two medical student observers using a prospectively devised original scale.Results:In 295 encounters with patients or family, feedback was rated as follows: 1) none in 224 (76%); 2) positive in 51 (17%); 3) negative in 19 (6%); and 4) mixed in one (<1%). Feedback from 254 encounters with emergency department personnel was rated as: 1) none in 185 (73%); 2) positive in 46 (18%); 3) negative in 21 (8%); and 4) mixed in 2 (1%). Patients who had consumed alcohol were more likely to give negative feedback than were patients who had not consumed alcohol. Feedback from emergency department personnel occurred more often when the emergency medical service provider considered the patient to be critically ill.Conclusion:The two groups provided feedback to emergency medical service providers in approximately one quarter of the calls. When feedback was provided, it was positive more than twice as often as it was negative. Emergency physicians should give regular and constructive feedback to emergency medical services providers more often than currently is the case.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-174
Author(s):  
Jane F. Knapp

Emergency Medical Services for Chi (EMS-C) must be recognized as a public responsibility; the "market" cannot be relied on to produce the kind of planning and cooperation required to make services available to all who need them.1 The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report on Emergency Medical Services For Children. Each year millions of American chi become seriously ill or injured. If you have ever encountered a child who did not receive the medical care they needed or deserved under these circumstances you understand what EMS-C is all about. The familiar adage, "Children are not small adults," emphasizes that their care must be an integral part of a system not an afterthought once the adults have been addressed. The achievement of the desired level of competence for EMS-C in the larger system is hampered by many factors. These include lack of organization, equipment, training, and a tack of understanding of the child's unique problems and needs. In response to these needs, Congress approved a demonstration grant program in 1984. The purpose of the program was threefold: to expand access to EMS-C, to improve the quality available through existing Emergency Medical Systems (EMS), and to generate knowledge and experience that would be of use to all states and localities seeking to improve their system. Continuing interest prompted the formation of the Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medical Services by the IOM. This 19-member committee Chaired by Dr Donald N. Medearis, Jr released their report in the summer of 1993. The IOM report entitled Emergency Medical Services for Chi is available in both a soft cover 25-page summary and the full text (see Appendix).


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 526-537
Author(s):  

Emergency care for life-threatening pediatric illness and injury requires specialized resources including equipment, drugs, trained personnel, and facilities. The American Medical Association Commission on Emergency Medical Services has provided guidelines for the categorization of hospital pediatric emergency facilities that have been endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).1 This document was used as the basis for these revised guidelines, which define: 1. The desirable characteristics of a system of Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) that may help achieve a reduction in mortality and morbidity, including long-term disability. 2. The role of health care facilities in identifying and organizing the resources necessary to provide the best possible pediatric emergency care within a region. 3. An integrated system of facilities that provides timely access and appropriate levels of care for all critically ill or injured children. 4. The responsibility of the health cane facility for support of medical control of pre-hospital activities and the pediatric emergency care and education of pre-hospital providers, nurses, and physicians. 5. The role of pediatric centers in providing outreach education and consultation to community facilities. 6. The role of health cane facilities for maintaining communication with the medical home of the patient. Children have their emergency care needs met in a variety of settings, from small community hospitals to large medical centers. Resources available to these health care sites vary, and they may not always have the necessary equipment, supplies, and trained personnel required to meet the special needs of pediatric patients during emergency situations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document