Comparison of Interventions in Prehospital Care by Standing Orders Versus Interventions Ordered by Direct [On-Line] Medical Command

C. James Holliman, Richard C. Wuerz, Gaspar Vazquez Miguel de, Steven A. Meador

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the patient care measures provided by paramedics according to standing orders versus measures ordered by direct [on-line] medical command in order to determine the types and frequency of medical command orders. Design: Prospective identification of patient care measures done as part of a prehospital quality assurance program. Setting: An urban paramedic service in the northeast United States with direct medical command from three local hospitals. Participants: One thousand eight paramedic reports from October 1992 through March 1993. Interventions: All patient care interventions recorded as done by standing orders or by direct medical command orders. Errors in patient care were determined by the same criteria as in the Prior two studies of the same system. Results: Direct medical command gave orders in 143/1,008 (14.2%) cases. Paramedics performed 2,453/2,624 (93.5%) of the total patient care interventions using standing orders. In 61 cases (6.1%), medical command ordered a potentially beneficial intervention not specified by standing orders or not done by the paramedic. 21/171 (12.3%) command orders were for additional doses of epinephrine or atropine in cardiac arrest cases (where the initial doses had been given under standing orders), and 59/171 (34.5%) were for interventions already mandated or permitted by standing orders. The paramedic error rate was 0.6%, and the medical command error rate was 1.8% (unchanged form the prior study of the same standing-orders system). Conclusion: Direct medical command gave orders in 14% of cases in this standing-orders system, but 35% of command orders only reiterated the standing orders. More selective and reduced uses of on-line command could be done in this system with no change in the types or numbers of patient care interventions performed. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1994;9(4):202-209.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)202-209
Number of pages8
JournalPrehospital and Disaster Medicine
Volume9
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1994

Fingerprint

Allied Health Personnel
Patient Care
Disaster Medicine
Standing Orders
Medical Errors
Heart Arrest
Atropine
Epinephrine

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Emergency Medicine
  • Emergency

Cite this

@article{79b8027ecf554b338c9ddff4d005e08f,
title = "Comparison of Interventions in Prehospital Care by Standing Orders Versus Interventions Ordered by Direct [On-Line] Medical Command",
abstract = "Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the patient care measures provided by paramedics according to standing orders versus measures ordered by direct [on-line] medical command in order to determine the types and frequency of medical command orders. Design: Prospective identification of patient care measures done as part of a prehospital quality assurance program. Setting: An urban paramedic service in the northeast United States with direct medical command from three local hospitals. Participants: One thousand eight paramedic reports from October 1992 through March 1993. Interventions: All patient care interventions recorded as done by standing orders or by direct medical command orders. Errors in patient care were determined by the same criteria as in the Prior two studies of the same system. Results: Direct medical command gave orders in 143/1,008 (14.2{\%}) cases. Paramedics performed 2,453/2,624 (93.5{\%}) of the total patient care interventions using standing orders. In 61 cases (6.1{\%}), medical command ordered a potentially beneficial intervention not specified by standing orders or not done by the paramedic. 21/171 (12.3{\%}) command orders were for additional doses of epinephrine or atropine in cardiac arrest cases (where the initial doses had been given under standing orders), and 59/171 (34.5{\%}) were for interventions already mandated or permitted by standing orders. The paramedic error rate was 0.6{\%}, and the medical command error rate was 1.8{\%} (unchanged form the prior study of the same standing-orders system). Conclusion: Direct medical command gave orders in 14{\%} of cases in this standing-orders system, but 35{\%} of command orders only reiterated the standing orders. More selective and reduced uses of on-line command could be done in this system with no change in the types or numbers of patient care interventions performed. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1994;9(4):202-209.",
author = "Holliman, {C. James} and Wuerz, {Richard C.} and {Miguel de}, {Gaspar Vazquez} and Meador, {Steven A.}",
year = "1994",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1017/S1049023X00041406",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "202--209",
journal = "Prehospital and Disaster Medicine",
issn = "1049-023X",
publisher = "World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine",
number = "4",

}

Comparison of Interventions in Prehospital Care by Standing Orders Versus Interventions Ordered by Direct [On-Line] Medical Command. / Holliman, C. James; Wuerz, Richard C.; Miguel de, Gaspar Vazquez; Meador, Steven A.

In: Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, Vol. 9, No. 4, 12.1994, p. 202-209.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Interventions in Prehospital Care by Standing Orders Versus Interventions Ordered by Direct [On-Line] Medical Command

AU - Holliman, C. James

AU - Wuerz, Richard C.

AU - Miguel de, Gaspar Vazquez

AU - Meador, Steven A.

PY - 1994/12

Y1 - 1994/12

N2 - Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the patient care measures provided by paramedics according to standing orders versus measures ordered by direct [on-line] medical command in order to determine the types and frequency of medical command orders. Design: Prospective identification of patient care measures done as part of a prehospital quality assurance program. Setting: An urban paramedic service in the northeast United States with direct medical command from three local hospitals. Participants: One thousand eight paramedic reports from October 1992 through March 1993. Interventions: All patient care interventions recorded as done by standing orders or by direct medical command orders. Errors in patient care were determined by the same criteria as in the Prior two studies of the same system. Results: Direct medical command gave orders in 143/1,008 (14.2%) cases. Paramedics performed 2,453/2,624 (93.5%) of the total patient care interventions using standing orders. In 61 cases (6.1%), medical command ordered a potentially beneficial intervention not specified by standing orders or not done by the paramedic. 21/171 (12.3%) command orders were for additional doses of epinephrine or atropine in cardiac arrest cases (where the initial doses had been given under standing orders), and 59/171 (34.5%) were for interventions already mandated or permitted by standing orders. The paramedic error rate was 0.6%, and the medical command error rate was 1.8% (unchanged form the prior study of the same standing-orders system). Conclusion: Direct medical command gave orders in 14% of cases in this standing-orders system, but 35% of command orders only reiterated the standing orders. More selective and reduced uses of on-line command could be done in this system with no change in the types or numbers of patient care interventions performed. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1994;9(4):202-209.

AB - Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the patient care measures provided by paramedics according to standing orders versus measures ordered by direct [on-line] medical command in order to determine the types and frequency of medical command orders. Design: Prospective identification of patient care measures done as part of a prehospital quality assurance program. Setting: An urban paramedic service in the northeast United States with direct medical command from three local hospitals. Participants: One thousand eight paramedic reports from October 1992 through March 1993. Interventions: All patient care interventions recorded as done by standing orders or by direct medical command orders. Errors in patient care were determined by the same criteria as in the Prior two studies of the same system. Results: Direct medical command gave orders in 143/1,008 (14.2%) cases. Paramedics performed 2,453/2,624 (93.5%) of the total patient care interventions using standing orders. In 61 cases (6.1%), medical command ordered a potentially beneficial intervention not specified by standing orders or not done by the paramedic. 21/171 (12.3%) command orders were for additional doses of epinephrine or atropine in cardiac arrest cases (where the initial doses had been given under standing orders), and 59/171 (34.5%) were for interventions already mandated or permitted by standing orders. The paramedic error rate was 0.6%, and the medical command error rate was 1.8% (unchanged form the prior study of the same standing-orders system). Conclusion: Direct medical command gave orders in 14% of cases in this standing-orders system, but 35% of command orders only reiterated the standing orders. More selective and reduced uses of on-line command could be done in this system with no change in the types or numbers of patient care interventions performed. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1994;9(4):202-209.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028524741&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028524741&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S1049023X00041406

DO - 10.1017/S1049023X00041406

M3 - Article

C2 - 10155529

AN - SCOPUS:0028524741

VL - 9

SP - 202

EP - 209

JO - Prehospital and Disaster Medicine

JF - Prehospital and Disaster Medicine

SN - 1049-023X

IS - 4

ER -