Skip to main content
Download PDF

Satisfaction among non-conveyed patients and significant others when discharged at the scene by the ambulance service: an exploratory cross-sectional survey

BMC Emergency Medicine volume 22, Article number: 100 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The ambulance service is facing an increased number of calls and ambulance assignments. Between 12 and 42% of all assignments result in non-conveyance to the Accident and Emergency Department. However, there is limited knowledge regarding satisfaction among patients and significant others when patients are assessed as non-urgent and discharged at the scene. Therefore, the aim of the study was to explore and compare satisfaction with the ambulance service among patients and significant others when the patient was discharged at the scene.

Methods

The present study was designed as a cross-sectional exploratory survey with a consecutive sample employing the Consumer Emergency Care Satisfaction Scale questionnaire on patients and significant others.

Results

A total of 162 questionnaires were analysed, 87 patients and 75 significant others. Overall, satisfaction was high with no significant difference between patients and significant others, although 17-19% were dissatisfied with the discharge information.

Conclusions

Generally, patients and significant others are satisfied with the care provided by the Ambulance Service when discharged at the scene and thus not conveyed the Accident and Emergency Department. The participants were especially satisfied with Specialist Ambulance Nurses’ interpersonal skills, e.g., making time and providing thorough information. Guidelines for assignments involving non-conveyance, as well as information, instructions and what to expect when discharged at the scene can be improved.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Mainly due to difficulties with the accessibility of primary care and an aging population, the Ambulance Service (AS) as well as Accident and Emergency departments (A&E) are reporting more presenting patients [1, 2]. Thus, the Ambulance Service (AS) is increasingly employing non-conveyance standards for patients with conditions assessed as non-urgent, thereby attempt to reduce unnecessary visits to the A&E [3]. The phenomenon of non-conveyance has been explored through epidemiological measures [4,5,6,7,8], indicating that between 12 and 42% of all ambulance assignments resulted in non-conveyance to the Accident and Emergency department (A&E). On the other hand, studies describing the phenomenon from Specialist Ambulance Nurses’ (SAN) perspective [9,10,11,12] reveal patient safety issues and lack of clarity in the guidelines Furthermore, knowledge concerning the satisfaction patients and significant others when subjected to non-conveyance is relatively scare and mostly limited to qualitative studies [13,14,15,16,17,18]. The AS have been facing a growing demand due to changes in population demographics and an increasing number of calls and ambulance assignments [19]. Subsequently, over the years the AS have undergone changes from being a pure transport organisation, where standard procedures resulted in patients being conveyed to the A&E, to optimizing assessment and triage including referral to the A&E, primary care units or being discharged at the scene [11, 20]. To our knowledge, satisfaction with the care provided when patients are assessed as non-urgent and discharged at the scene is rarely described, indicating a possible knowledge gap and thus representing the rationale behind this study.

Due to national legislation, since 2005 ambulances in Sweden are staffed with a Registered Nurse (RN), who holds a three-year bachelor’s degree. The nurse is often teamed with another RN or an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) [21]. In recent years Swedish ambulances are more commonly staffed with a SAN who holds a 1 year master degree in prehospital emergency care, thus a four-year university level education [22, 23]. RNs and SANs in the Swedish AS make medical decisions based on comprehensive guidelines and protocols [24]. In most Swedish counties, RNs and SANs can assess and refer patients to levels of care other than the A&E. The result of the assessment may e.g., be a non-conveyance decision at the scene or advice to contact a primary care unit [11, 24]. The levels of care in the Swedish health system are generally described as; self-care, primary care (including home visits by a local/regional GP) and the A&E at the hospital. Hereafter, the nurse in the ambulance will be referred to as a SAN, which is in line with the level of competence in the given context at the time of data inclusion.

Patient satisfaction is a multidimensional concept that is widely employed to evaluate e.g., waiting times, nursing skills [25, 26] and expectations of the provision of care in the A&E setting [27, 28]. Furthermore, patient satisfaction has been described as more than a lack of complaints about medical treatment [29], suggesting that care focused on medical or technical interventions does not lead to satisfied patients [30]. In general, research indicates that patients who are involved in their care and treated with dignity tend to be both more compliant and satisfied [31]. How patients experience care is a measure of its quality, which possibly has an impact on patient safety [32]. The source of dissatisfaction in the AS setting is often linked to poor communication, lack of a professional attitude, inadequate medical assessments, insufficient information and needs not being met by clinicians [13, 33, 34]. Patients express that they want to have their needs fulfilled, despite being aware that their condition is non-urgent and not life-threatening. In order to be reassured about symptoms such as pain, discomfort and anxiety, patients or their significant tend summon an ambulance [35, 36]. Consequently, the AS is often patients’ first contact with the health care system. Studies indicate that patients experience the care provided as positive [13, 37] and even expressed satisfaction [38, 39].

Many patients seeking care from the AS often present with conditions deemed non-urgent that could possibly be treated at a different level of care [35]. However, alerting the AS is often preceded on the part of the patient and the decision-making process leading to the actual call is not taken lightly [40]. Furthermore, study results have shown that patients have a need to be involved in their care and the decisions taken when being cared for and assessed by the SAN. Being taken seriously by the SAN and having their fear and anxiety alleviated have also been revealed as an important dimension that promotes autonomy and a sense of security [15, 17]. Significant others, defined as any person who is close and important to the patient [41], also play an important role as they provide both emotional and instrumental support to the patient [42]. In many cases a significant other is the one who phones for an ambulance [40], thus when a patient or a significant other calls for an ambulance they hope to gain control over their situation. Being a significant other often means responsibility and caring for the patient, which creates feelings of loneliness and vulnerability when illness occur [43]. In addition, significant others’ reasons for summoning an ambulance are powerlessness and their understanding the patient’s situation is urgent and that the affected person (i.e. the patient) might die. Therefore, significant others often feel relieved upon the SANs’ arrival [14, 16, 43]. Significant others have been found to experience their own form of suffering and are also in need of support. Taking care of and understanding the life world of significant others, i.e., their concerns, is a vital part of the SAN’s clinical operation [43]. There is limited knowledge of satisfaction among patients and significant others and whether AS staff have succeeded in optimizing assessments and decision-making in situations of non-conveyance to a healthcare facility. Measuring satisfaction with the care provided could possibly contribute to a better understanding of the expectations and demands of patients and significant others when patients are subjected to non-conveyance to the A&E and consequently discharged at the scene or referred to a primary care unit and/or general practitioner (GP).

Aim

The aim of the study was to explore and compare satisfaction with the ambulance service among patients and significant others when the patient was discharged at the scene.

Methods

Design

The present study was designed as a cross-sectional, exploratory survey with a consecutive sample. The STROBE statement [44] was utilised to guide the preparation of this study and to ensure qualitative reporting based on the STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies.

Context, study setting and participants

A triage assessment tool called the Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System (RETTS) is commonly used nationwide in most AS and A&E organisations in Sweden. The RETTS triage system is intended as a prioritization tool to decide how quickly the patient needs to be assessed by a physician [45]. RETTS is based on the assessment of the patients’ major medical problem (flow charts entitled Emergency Symptoms and Signs, ESS) and considered to identify patients who are at risk of deteriorating at an early stage. The recording of vital parameters (VP) has been added to all RETTS flow charts, i.e. pulse rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, body temperature and level of consciousness. The ESS codes include 58 different algorithms (2016 version) with the most common chief complaints. The combined assessed degree of urgency of both ESS and vital signs determines the priority level, which is indicated by the colours Red, Orange, Yellow, Green and Blue. The red level corresponds to a life-threatening situation, orange is potentially life-threatening, while yellow and green are non-urgent and blue represents a very limited medical risk. Thus, in many cases, the patients assessed as yellow, green or blue do not require conveyance to the A&E. An explanatory text that provides recommendations about what the assessing nurse should consider and what actions are recommended for each condition, such as taking an ECG for ongoing chest pain, is presented as a supplement to the flow chart. RETTS, combined with the clinical assessment, can be considered a prioritisation system [46, 47].

Setting

At the time of the study, some 250,000 inhabitants within the regional catchment area were served by the local AS, which operated 13 land-based ambulances depending on time of day and season. In 2018 the AS handled about 33,000 assignments (comprising all priority levels).

Participants

The participants were patients and significant others deemed non-urgent by the SAN upon arrival at the scene, thus discharged at the scene and not conveyed by ambulance to the A&E. The inclusion criteria were adult (18 years old or over), Swedish speaking and cognitively lucid. All participants who met the inclusion criteria were recruited consecutively within the catchment area by all SANs who handed out questionnaires to eligible participants. The participants were invited to take part in the study when the SANs were about to leave the patient’s home or accident scene, i.e., in conjunction with routine ambulance assignments.

Data collection

In this exploratory study our intention was to amass 100 surveys for each group, i.e., patients and significant others respectively. All potential participants received an information letter that outlined the aim and details about the study, including the fact that the participants could withdraw at any time without stating reasons. A prepaid envelope addressed to the last author [A.R.] at Lund University, that could be dropped into any post box, was also included. Returning the completed survey was considered informed consent, which was stated in the information letter. As neither the questionnaire nor the envelope contained recognizable information, no reminder was sent. The data collection took place from June to September 2016 and was deemed complete when the target sample size was achieved.

Instrument

The survey included three parts; 1) Questions regarding demographics, 2) The SANs’ triage assessment (RETTS algorithm number and colour stated in the questionnaire before being handed out) and 3) The Consumer Emergency Care Satisfaction Scale (CECSS).

The CECSS is a questionnaire developed for measuring patient satisfaction in emergency care contexts [48, 49] and has been translated into Swedish and tested in A&E environments [50, 51] as well as in the AS [38, 39]. The instrument consists of 19 items with statements and a five-point Likert scale for measuring the response from 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree. The CECSS measures satisfaction with nursing care including two dimensions: care (12 items) and discharge teaching (3 items) with the total score ranging from 15 to 75. Four negatively worded items are also included in the questionnaire to avoid/prevent response bias with the total score ranging from 4 to 20. A total score of 45 ≥ indicates satisfaction with care and < 45 indicates dissatisfaction, while in the negative items 12 ≤ indicates satisfaction and > 12 indicates dissatisfaction. The instrument has been evaluated for its psychometric properties in previous studies, with both the caring subscale and discharge teaching subscale demonstrating good reliability and internal consistency as well as adequate validity [49, 51]. Furthermore, two Swedish studies have investigated the provision of care by measuring patient satisfaction and the quality of the care received, where the CECSS was found to be feasible within the AS context [50, 51].

The CECSS has been further developed with design of a Swedish version that focuses on accompanying persons, i.e., significant others, the CECSS-A [52]. The CECSS-A consists of the same structure as the original version, i.e., 19 items and a five-point Likert scale. The modification of the original CECSS instrument involved slightly rephrasing four items to make them applicable to significant others. Another difference is that the CECSS-A has three subcategories; caring, teaching and in addition clinical competence [52]. Overall, the CECSS-A has shown satisfying psychometric properties, was deemed reliable and has proven feasible to use in the ED context to measure satisfaction among accompanying persons/significant others [52, 53].

Statistical analysis

Demographic data of the survey participants, i.e., patients and significant others, were summarized by descriptive statistics. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for group comparison of the ordinal outcomes of individual items and Fisher’s exact test for group comparisons of the satisfaction score between patients and significant others. The sum scores scale was categorized into 15-44, 45-59 and 60-75, the negative items subscale was categorized into 4-8, 9-12 and 13-20. P-values < 0.05 were regarded as statistically significant. The statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Services (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 27.0.0).

Results

A total of 507 questionnaires were handed out during the study period, of which 210 (41%) were returned; 110 from patients and 100 from significant others. Of these 48 were excluded due to incomplete responses. Hence, 162 complete questionnaires from 87 patients and 75 significant others were included and analysed. Of the included patients 49 were men and 37 were women, while the significant others comprised 43 men and 31 women. Their median age was 67 years and 62 years respectively. The characteristics of the patients and significant others are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of patients and significant others in the study (n = 162)
Full size table

In total, 64% of the patients and significant others selected the most positive response alternatives on the CECSS. Similarly, on the four negatively worded items (i.e., reversed order), 77% selected the most positive alternatives. However, items concerning information/communication when discharged at the scene (i.e., not conveyed), such as “The nurse gave me instructions about caring for myself/the patient at home”,“The nurse told me what problems to watch for” and “The nurse told me what to expect at home” revealed that 19% respectively 17% of the patients and significant other were dissatisfied. One negatively worded item indicated that 18% were dissatisfaction, namely “The nurse should have been more attentive than he or she was”. Mean scores for the CECSS and the negatively worded items were 66.77 (SD 10.2) and 6.31 (SD 3.7) respectively. No significant differences were observed between patients and significant others on individual items. The distribution of responses on patient and significant others’ satisfaction for each item with the number and percentage for each response is presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Number and percentage distribution of CECSS item responses from patients (p) and significant others (so) (n = 162)
Full size table

There was no significant difference between the CECSS scores of patients and significant others, 94% in both groups indicated satisfaction (p = 0.87). Only five patients and four significant others reported dissatisfaction. Regarding the negatively worded items, 15% of the patients compared with 16% of the significant others indicated less satisfaction (p = 0.40) (Table 3).

Table 3 Comparison of CECSS scores and the CECSS negative items between patients and significant others
Full size table

Discussion

This study investigates and compares satisfaction with the AS among patients and significant others when the patient was discharged at the scene. The results show that patients and significant others were satisfied with the AS and the care provided by SANs when not conveyed to the A&E. No significant difference were observed between significant others and patients on the satisfaction scores.

Summoning an ambulance is not something that is taken lightly [40]. However, when the decision is made, patients expect a timely response in order to quickly alleviate anxiety due to the perceived illness [36]. This was also reflected in the present study as the participants indicated high scores on being genuinely concerned about the patient’s or significant other’s pain, fear and anxiety. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that upon the arrival of the ambulance, the attenders values competence and skills of clinicians, who were perceived to be knowledgeable and thorough in their assessments [36], including obtaining a medical history as well as checking and measuring vital signs, e.g., blood pressure, pulse, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, level of consciousness and body temperature [11]. If the patient is assessed as non-urgent and thereby not conveyed to the A&E, no major medical interventions or administration of medications are to be performed [12]. However, this study reveals that 17 – 19% of participants were dissatisfied regarding items on instructions about further care and what to expect when left at home. Providing information and explanations has been showed to be important in emergency service settings [16, 17, 27] and is associated with perceived satisfaction with the care provided [54]. This issue has room for improvement, i.e., indicating a need to emphasise satisfaction as positively associated with perceived interpersonal care [55], where staff members’ attentiveness to and gentleness in meeting patients’ needs, including provision of relevant information and instructions, should be highlighted [56]. In addition, in the case of non-conveyance, more interest should focused on what happens after patients or significant others are discharged at the scene, e.g. instructions regarding self-care advice [18]. As highlighted by SANs, the AS guidelines lack clarity and to a large extent do not include the patient perspective or assignments involving non-conveyance [9,10,11,12], which calls for further development.

The results from this study with high scores concerning listening and understanding the patients’ description of the perceived illness are consistent with previous studies on patients’ experiences of the AS and when subjected to non-conveyance [13]. Patients point out the basic human need to be taken seriously, which can be achieved by listening when they describe their illness experience, i.e., spending time with the patient [15]. This is in line with the results where both significant others and patients indicated that The nurse appeared to take time to meet my needs was important. A Swedish study reveals that ambulance assignments where patients are subjected to non-conveyance take 25 min on average [57]. Despite the relatively brief contact with the SAN, studies have shown that patients felt important and involved in their care [58], resulting in a sense of confirmation and confidence in their ability to handle the situation [15, 58].

Previous studies in the AS setting have found that before the arrival of the SANs significant others were feeling lonely and frightened, although forced to be present and care for the patient [43]. Therefore, significant others have a strong need to be de-burdened from the caring responsibility, which they assumed more or less involuntarily [14]. This was achieved temporarily when the SANs took over the interpretations of the symptoms, the responsibility and the decision-making from the significant other [14, 43]. This is in line with the present study, where allowing time to answer questions and explaining the situation in a clear manner was indicated as highly important.

Arguably, the issue of the patients and significant others’ trust in the SANs’ professionality could be considered a hugely influential factor [59], which probably affects satisfaction scores. As trust is dependent on multiple factors associated with person-centred care, such as patient participation, shared decision-making and the SANs’ credibility in the caring relationship, one can assume that perceptions of care and aligned decisions held by the patients as well as the significant others vary in line with their overall feeling of trust. As it can be assumed that the phenomenon of trust probably had a great impact on satisfaction scores in this study, measures to increase trust among all parties in the caring relationship should be considered central for achieving greater satisfaction with the provision of care [55, 60].

Limitations

This study describes satisfaction among patients and significant others to patients in connection with the care of patients with non-urgent conditions and subjected to non-conveyance, which may complicate generalisation to all patient situations within the AS, including higher priority or potentially life-threatening conditions. A weakness of the study was the lack of non-Swedish speaking/reading participants, which potentially affected the study’s validity as the questionnaire used was only written in Swedish. Hence, the results could possibly be affected due to this lack of ethnic diversity. The result of a cross-sectional study should be interpreted with some caution as like most study designs, it has both advantages and disadvantages, e.g., it is not possible to draw conclusions about causality. The study was conducted within in a limited geographical area, which may also constitute a limitation. However, the chosen area contains a mix of rural and urban settings, as well as varying socioeconomic situations among the inhabitants. As the questionnaires were handed out by SANs in conjunction with ordinary ambulance assignments, selection bias cannot be ruled out, nor that the treatment provided was better than normal, resulting in higher satisfaction scores. However, the returned questionnaires contained varied responses, suggesting that they are representative. Finally, the response rate was reasonably high (41%), as a self-reported questionnaire typically demonstrates response rates of between 25 and 30% [61]. Here, one must consider whether those who responded were more satisfied with the care and more willing to complete the questionnaire, and if those who did not return the questionnaire were either dissatisfied and not willing to respond or satisfied but did not feel the need to respond. A number of returned questionnaires were excluded due to missing answers in the majority of the individual items, which we judged could be challenging to deal with in an appropriate statistical manner. Consequently, it cannot be completely ruled out that the result could be affected by this loss. Furthermore, as the sample is somewhat small, the generalisation of the findings may be limited.

Conclusions

The results of this study reveal that overall, patients and significant others are satisfied with the care provided by the AS despite being discharged at the scene and thus not conveyed to the A&E. Satisfaction is an important outcome of nursing care that is associated with meeting the needs of patients and significant others. The participants in this study were especially satisfied with SANs’ interpersonal skills, e.g., making time and providing thorough information. However, guidelines for assignments involving non-conveyance, as well as information, instructions and what to expect when discharged at the scene need to be improved.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available since it was not acknowledged by the Regional Ethical Review Board at the time of study’s ethical vetting process. However, generated dataset and/or analysis are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

A&E:

Accident and Emergency department

AS:

Ambulance Service

CECSS:

Consumer Emergency Care Satisfaction Scale

GP:

General practitioner

VP:

Vital Parameters

ESS:

Emergency Symptoms and Signs

RN:

Registered Nurse

EMT:

Emergency Medical Technician

SAN:

Specialist Ambulance Nurse

References

  1. Andrew E, Nehme Z, Cameron P, Smith K. Drivers of increasing emergency ambulance demand. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2020;24(3):385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lowthian JA, Cameron PA, Stoelwinder JU, Curtis A, Currell A, Cooke MW, et al. Increasing utilisation of emergency ambulances. Aust Health Rev. 2011;35(1):63–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fisher JD, Freeman K, Clarke A, Spurgeon P, Smyth M, Perkins GD, et al. Patient safety in ambulance services: a scoping review. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2015;21(3):21–250.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Forsell L, Forsberg A, Kisch A, Rantala A. Inequalities and short-term outcome among patients assessed as non-urgent in a Swedish ambulance service setting. Int Emerg Nurs. 2021;57:101018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Höglund E, Andersson-Hagiwara M, Schroder A, Moller M, Ohlsson-Nevo E. Characteristics of non-conveyed patients in emergency medical services (EMS): a one-year prospective descriptive and comparative study in a region of Sweden. BMC Emerg Med. 2020;20(1):61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Lederman J, Lindström V, Elmqvist C, Löfvenmark C, Djärv T. Non-conveyance in the ambulance service: a population-based cohort study in Stockholm, Sweden. BMJ Open. 2020;10(7):e036659.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Oosterwold J, Sagel D, Berben S, Roodbol P, Broekhuis M. Factors influencing the decision to convey or not to convey elderly people to the emergency department after emergency ambulance attendance: a systematic mixed studies review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(8):e021732.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Paulin J, Kurola J, Salantera S, Moen H, Guragain N, Koivisto M, et al. Changing role of EMS -analyses of non-conveyed and conveyed patients in Finland. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2020;28(1):45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Backman T, Juuso P, Borg R, Engström Å. Ambulance nurses' experiences of deciding a patient does not require ambulance care. Nurs Open. 2019;6:783–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Barrientos C, Holmberg M. The care of patients assessed as not in need of emergency ambulance care–registered nurses’ lived experiences. Int Emergency Nurs. 2018;38:10–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Höglund E, Schröder A, Möller M, Andersson-Hagiwara M, Ohlsson-Nevo E. The ambulance nurse experiences of non-conveying patients. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28(1-2):235–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lederman J, Löfvenmark C, Djärv T, Lindström V, Elmqvist C. Assessing non-conveyed patients in the ambulance service: a phenomenological interview study with Swedish ambulance clinicians. BMJ Open. 2019;9(9):e030203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. King R, Oprescu F, Lord B, Flanagan B. Patient experience of non-conveyance following emergency ambulance service response: a scoping review of the literature. Australas Emerg Care. 2020;24:210–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rantala A, Ekwall A, Forsberg A. The meaning of significant others’ encounter with the ambulance clinicians in a non-emergency care context. Nordic J Nurs Res. 2016;36(1):51–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rantala A, Ekwall A, Forsberg A. The meaning of being triaged to non-emergency ambulance care as experienced by patients. Int Emerg Nurs. 2016;25:65–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rantala A, Ekwall A, Forsberg A. Significant others' perceptions of being taken seriously by the Swedish ambulance service when the patient is assessed as nonurgent. Scand J Caring Sci. 2019;34(4):1028–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rantala A, Forsberg A, Ekwall A. Person-centred climate and psychometrical exploration of person-centredness and among patients not conveyed by the ambulance care service. Scand J Caring Sci. 2018;32(2):852–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. van Doorn SCM, Verhalle RC, Ebben RHA, Frost DM, Vloet LCM, de Brouwer CPM. The experience of non-conveyance following emergency medical service triage from the perspective of patients and their relatives: a qualitative study. Int Emerg Nurs. 2021;54:100952.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Forsgärde ES, Elmqvist C, Fridlund B, Svensson A, Andersson R, Roost M. Patients' aged >/=65 years dispositions during ambulance assignments, including factors associated with non-conveyance to hospital: a longitudinal and comparative study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(11):e038885.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Melby V, Ryan A. Caring for older people in prehospital emergency care: can nurses make a difference? J Clin Nurs. 2005;14(9):1141–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Suserud B-O. A new profession in the pre-hospital care field--the ambulance nurse. Nurs Crit Care. 2005;10(6):269–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sjölin H, Lindstrom V, Hult H, Ringsted C, Kurland L. What an ambulance nurse needs to know: a content analysis of curricula in the specialist nursing programme in prehospital emergency care. Int Emerg Nurs. 2015;23(2):127–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wihlborg J, Edgren G, Johansson A, Sivberg B. The desired competence of the Swedish ambulance nurse according to the professionals - a Delphi study. Int Emerg Nurs. 2014;22(3):127–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Larsson G, Holmen A, Ziegert K. Early prehospital assessment of non-urgent patients and outcomes at the appropriate level of care: a prospective exploratory study. Int Emerg Nurs. 2017;32:45–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dinh M, Walker A, Parameswaran A, Enright N. Evaluating the quality of care delivered by an emergency department fast track unit with both nurse practitioners and doctors. Australas Emerg Nurs J. 2012;15(4):188–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Taylor C, Benger JR. Patient satisfaction in emergency medicine. Emerg Med J. 2004;21(5):528–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Möller M, Fridlund B, Göransson K. Patients' conceptions of the triage encounter at the emergency department. Scand J Caring Sci. 2010;24(4):746–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Shah S, Patel A, Rumoro DP, Hohmann S, Fullam F. Managing patient expectations at emergency department triage. Patient Exp J. 2015;2(2):31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Boudreaux ED, O'Hea EL. Patient satisfaction in the emergency department: a review of the literature and implications for practice. J Emerg Med. 2004;26(1):13–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nyström M, Dahlberg K, Carlsson G. Non-caring encounters at an emergency care unit--a life-world hermeneutic analysis of an efficiency-driven organization. Int J Nurs Stud. 2003;40(7):761–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Swenne CL, Skytt B. The ward round--patient experiences and barriers to participation. Scand J Caring Sci. 2014;28(2):297–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Skålen C, Nordgren L, Annerbäck EM. Patient complaints about health care in a Swedish County: characteristics and satisfaction after handling. Nurs Open. 2016;3(4):203–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Breeman W, Poublon NA, Verhofstad MHJ, Van Lieshout EMM. Safety of on-scene medical care by EMS nurses in non-transported patients: a prospective, observational study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018;26(1):79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Forsgärde ES, From Attebring M, Elmqvist C. Powerlessness: dissatisfied patients' and relatives' experience of their emergency department visit. Int Emerg Nurs. 2016;25:32–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Durant E, Fahimi J. Factors associated with ambulance use among patients with low-acuity conditions. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2012;16(3):329–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Togher FJ, O'Cathain A, Phung VH, Turner J, Siriwardena AN. Reassurance as a key outcome valued by emergency ambulance service users: a qualitative interview study. Health Expect. 2015;18(6):2951–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Halter M, Marlow T, Tye C, Ellison GT. Patients' experiences of care provided by emergency care practitioners and traditional ambulance practitioners: a survey from the London ambulance service. Emerg Med J. 2006;23(11):865–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Johansson A, Ekwall A, Wihlborg J. Patient satisfaction with ambulance care services: survey from two districts in southern Sweden. Int Emerg Nurs. 2011;19(2):86–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Larsson G, Strömberg U, Rogmark C, Nilsdotter A. Patient satisfaction with prehospital emergency care following a hip fracture: a prospective questionnaire-based study. BMC Nurs. 2018;17:38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Ahl C, Nyström M, Jansson L. Making up one's mind:--patients' experiences of calling an ambulance. Accid Emerg Nurs. 2006;14(1):11–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Linnarsson JR, Bubini J, Perseius KI. A meta-synthesis of qualitative research into needs and experiences of significant others to critically ill or injured patients. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19(21-22):3102–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Finfgeld-Connett D. Clarification of social support. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2005;37(1):4–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Holmberg M, Forslund K, Wahlberg AC, Fagerberg I. The relationship with the ambulance clinicians as experienced by significant others. Nurs Crit Care. 2016;21(4):e1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):344–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. SBU: Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering. Triage och flödesprocesser på akutmottagningen [Triage Methods and Patient Flow Processes at Emergency Departments]. Stockholm: Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Widgren B, Jourak M. Medical emergency triage and treatment system (METTS): a new protocol in primary triage and secondary priority decision in emergency medicine. J Emerg Med. 2011;40(6):623–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Widgren BR, Jourak M, Martinius A. New accurate triage method. METTS-A yields basis for priority level decisions. Lakartidningen. 2008;105(4):201–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Davis BA, Bush HA. Developing effective measurement tools: a case study of the consumer emergency care satisfaction scale. J Nurs Care Qual. 1995;9(2):26–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Davis BA, Kiesel CK, McFarland J, Collard A, Coston K, Keeton A. Evaluating instruments for quality: testing convergent validity of the consumer emergency care satisfaction scale. J Nurs Care Qual. 2005;20(4):364–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ekwall A. Acuity and anxiety from the patient's perspective in the emergency department. J Emerg Nurs. 2013;39(6):534–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Ekwall A, Davis BA. Testing a Swedish version of the consumer emergency care satisfaction scale in an emergency department and 2 observation wards. J Nurs Care Qual. 2010;25(3):266–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kristensson J, Ekwall A. Psychometric properties of the consumer emergency care satisfaction scale: tested on persons accompanying patients in emergency department. J Nurs Care Qual. 2008;23(3):277–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ekwall A, Gerdtz M, Manias E. Anxiety as a factor influencing satisfaction with emergency department care: perspectives of accompanying persons. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18(24):3489–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Watt D, Wertzler W, Brannan G. Patient expectations of emergency department care: phase I--a focus group study. CJEM. 2005;7(1):12–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wireklint Sundstrom B, Bremer A, Lindstrom V, Vicente V. Caring science research in the ambulance services: an integrative systematic review. Scand J Caring Sci. 2019;33(1):3–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Bayliss EA, Edwards AE, Steiner JF, Main DS. Processes of care desired by elderly patients with multimorbidities. Fam Pract. 2008;25(4):287–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Malm F, Elfström A, Ohlsson-Nevo E, Höglund E. Time consumption for non-conveyed patients within emergency medical services (EMS): a one-year prospective descriptive and comparative study in a region of Sweden. PLoS One. 2021;16(5):e0251686.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Holmberg M, Forslund K, Wahlberg A, Fagerberg I. To surrender in dependence of another: the relationship with the ambulance clinicians as experienced by patients. Scand J Caring Sci. 2014;28(3):544–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Norberg Boysen G, Nyström M, Christensson L, Herlitz J, Wireklint Sundström B. Trust in the early chain of healthcare: lifeworld hermeneutics from the patient’s perspective. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2017;12(1):1356674.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Wireklint Sundström B, Dahlberg K. Caring assessment in the Swedish ambulance services relieves suffering and enables safe decisions. Int Emerg Nurs. 2011;19(3):113–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Badger F, Werrett J. Room for improvement? Reporting response rates and recruitment in nursing research in the past decade. J Adv Nurs. 2005;51(5):502–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their special thanks to the patients and significant others included in the study for their participation. All authors also express their gratitude to the managers and clinicians in the ambulance service for their collaboration, which made the study possible.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Lund University. This study received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PreHospen-Centre for Prehospital Research, Faculty of Caring Science, Work Life and Social Welfare, University of Borås, Borås, Sweden

    Glenn Larsson

  2. Department of Prehospital Emergency Care, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Glenn Larsson

  3. Emergency Department, Halland Hospital, Halmstad, Sweden

    Alma Dagerhem

  4. School of Health and Welfare, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden

    Jonas Wihlborg

  5. Emergency Department, Helsingborg General Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden

    Andreas Rantala

  6. Department of Health Sciences, Lund University, P.O. Box 157, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden

    Andreas Rantala

  7. Centre of Interprofessional Cooperation within Emergency Care (CICE), Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden

    Andreas Rantala

Authors
  1. Glenn Larsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alma Dagerhem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jonas Wihlborg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andreas Rantala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization; AR. Data curation; AD, GL, AR. Formal analysis; AD, GL, AR. Funding acquisition; AR. Investigation; AD, AR. Methodology; AD, GL, AR. Project administration; AR. Resources; AR. Software; AD, GL, AR. Supervision; AR. Validation; AD, GL, JW, AR. Visualization; AD, GL, AR. Writing - original draft; AD, AR. Writing - review & editing; AD, GL, JW, AR. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Rantala.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Utility and information were taken into account in line with the Declaration of Helsinki [56] and the Swedish ethical protocol and legislation (SFS 2003:460), thus the ethical code of conduct was followed and conformed to ethical guidelines and regulations. Informed consent was obtained by all informants according to regulations provided by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Lund, Sweden, that vetted and approved the study (Reference No. 2012/253).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Larsson, G., Dagerhem, A., Wihlborg, J. et al. Satisfaction among non-conveyed patients and significant others when discharged at the scene by the ambulance service: an exploratory cross-sectional survey. BMC Emerg Med 22, 100 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-022-00659-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-022-00659-9

Keywords

BMC Emergency Medicine

ISSN: 1471-227X

Contact us