TY - JOUR
T1 - The development of emergency medical services benefit score
T2 - a European Delphi study
AU - Heino, Anssi
AU - Raatiniemi, Lasse
AU - Iirola, Timo
AU - Meriläinen, Merja
AU - Liisanantti, Janne
AU - Tommila, Miretta
AU - Krüger, Andreas
AU - Dami, Fabrice
AU - Moens, Didier
AU - Fevang, Espen
AU - Harve-Rytsälä, Heini
AU - Jäntti, Helena
AU - Nurmi, Jouni
AU - Tønsager, Kristin
AU - Rognås, Leif
AU - Rehn, Marius
AU - Schober, Patrick
AU - Bredmose, Per P.
AU - Hansen, Peter Martin
AU - Temesvari, Peter
AU - Mikkelsen, Søren
AU - Lindner, Thomas W.
AU - Hansen, Troels Martin
AU - Nikula, Anna
AU - Kantanen, Anne Mari
AU - Lindgren, Antti E.
AU - Salmi, Heli
AU - Kirjasuo, Karri
AU - Varpula, Marjut
AU - Reinikainen, Matti
AU - Paalasmaa, Nanneli
AU - Peltoniemi, Outi
AU - Luoto, Teemu
AU - Lund, Vesa
AU - Jalkanen, Ville
AU - Collaboration Group
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s).
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - Background: The helicopter emergency services (HEMS) Benefit Score (HBS) is a nine-level scoring system developed to evaluate the benefits of HEMS missions. The HBS has been in clinical use for two decades in its original form. Advances in prehospital care, however, have produced demand for a revision of the HBS. Therefore, we developed the emergency medical services (EMS) Benefit Score (EBS) based on the former HBS. As reflected by its name, the aim of the EBS is to measure the benefits produced by the whole EMS systems to patients. Methods: This is a four-round, web-based, international Delphi consensus study with a consensus definition made by experts from seven countries. Participants reviewed items of the revised HBS on a 5-point Likert scale. A content validity index (CVI) was calculated, and agreement was defined as a 70% CVI. Study included experts from seven European countries. Of these, 18 were prehospital expert panellists and 11 were in-hospital commentary board members. Results: The first Delphi round resulted in 1248 intervention examples divided into ten diagnostic categories. After removing overlapping examples, 413 interventions were included in the second Delphi round, which resulted in 38 examples divided into HBS categories 3–8. In the third Delphi round, these resulted in 37 prehospital interventions, examples of which were given revised version of the score. In the fourth and final Delphi round, the expert panel was given an opportunity to accept or comment on the revised scoring system. Conclusions: The former HBS was revised by a Delphi methodology and EBS developed to represent its structural purpose better. The EBS includes 37 exemplar prehospital interventions to guide its clinical use. Trial registration The study permission was requested and granted by Turku University Hospital (decision number TP2/010/18).
AB - Background: The helicopter emergency services (HEMS) Benefit Score (HBS) is a nine-level scoring system developed to evaluate the benefits of HEMS missions. The HBS has been in clinical use for two decades in its original form. Advances in prehospital care, however, have produced demand for a revision of the HBS. Therefore, we developed the emergency medical services (EMS) Benefit Score (EBS) based on the former HBS. As reflected by its name, the aim of the EBS is to measure the benefits produced by the whole EMS systems to patients. Methods: This is a four-round, web-based, international Delphi consensus study with a consensus definition made by experts from seven countries. Participants reviewed items of the revised HBS on a 5-point Likert scale. A content validity index (CVI) was calculated, and agreement was defined as a 70% CVI. Study included experts from seven European countries. Of these, 18 were prehospital expert panellists and 11 were in-hospital commentary board members. Results: The first Delphi round resulted in 1248 intervention examples divided into ten diagnostic categories. After removing overlapping examples, 413 interventions were included in the second Delphi round, which resulted in 38 examples divided into HBS categories 3–8. In the third Delphi round, these resulted in 37 prehospital interventions, examples of which were given revised version of the score. In the fourth and final Delphi round, the expert panel was given an opportunity to accept or comment on the revised scoring system. Conclusions: The former HBS was revised by a Delphi methodology and EBS developed to represent its structural purpose better. The EBS includes 37 exemplar prehospital interventions to guide its clinical use. Trial registration The study permission was requested and granted by Turku University Hospital (decision number TP2/010/18).
KW - Delphi method
KW - Emergency medical services
KW - Prehospital
KW - Quality control
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85119140950&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s13049-021-00966-3
DO - 10.1186/s13049-021-00966-3
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 34656149
AN - SCOPUS:85119140950
SN - 1757-7241
VL - 29
JO - Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
JF - Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
IS - 1
M1 - 151
ER -