‘Every day was a learning curve’: the experience of implementing COVID-19 triage protocols in UK ambulance services – a qualitative study

BackgroundTRIM is an evaluation of the models used to triage and manage emergency ambulance service care for patients with suspected Covid-19 during the first wave of the pandemic in 2020. We aimed to understand experiences and concerns of clinical and managerial staff about implementation of triage protocols in call centre and on-scene.MethodsResearch paramedics in four study sites across England interviewed purposively selected stakeholders from ambulance services (call handlers, clinical advisors in call centres, clinicians providing emergency response, managers) and ED clinical staff from one hospital per site. Interviews (n=23) were conducted remotely using MS Teams, recorded, and transcribed in full. Analysis generated themes from the implicit and explicit ideas within participants’ accounts, following the six stages of analysis described by Braun and Clarke, conducted by a group of researchers and PPI partners working together.ResultsWe identified the following themes:Constantly changing guidelines – at some points, updates several times a dayThe ambulance service as part of the wider healthcare system - changes in other parts of the healthcare system left ambulance services as the default optionPeaks and troughs of demand - demand fluctuated greatly over time, with workload varying across the ambulance service, including an increased role for clinical advisorsA stretched system - resources to respond to patient demand were stretched thinner by staff sickness and isolation, longer job times, and increased handover delays at EDEmotional load of responding to the pandemic - particularly for call centre staffDoing the best they can in the face of uncertainty - in the face of a rapidly evolving situation unlike any which ambulance services had faced beforeDiscussionImplementing triage protocols in response to the Covid-19 pandemic was a complex and process which had to be actively managed by a range of front line staff, dealing with external pressures and a heavy emotional load.

‘Function First’: how to promote physical activity and physical function in people with long-term conditions managed in primary care? A study combining realist and co-design methods

ObjectivesTo develop a taxonomy of interventions and a programme theory explaining how interventions improve physical activity and function in people with long-term conditions managed in primary care. To co-design a prototype intervention informed by the programme theory.DesignRealist synthesis combining evidence from a wide range of rich and relevant literature with stakeholder views. Resulting context, mechanism and outcome statements informed co-design and knowledge mobilisation workshops with stakeholders to develop a primary care service innovation.ResultsA taxonomy was produced, including 13 categories of physical activity interventions for people with long-term conditions.Abridged realist programme theoryRoutinely addressing physical activity within consultations is dependent on a reinforcing practice culture, and targeted resources, with better coordination, will generate more opportunities to address low physical activity. The adaptation of physical activity promotion to individual needs and preferences of people with long-term conditions helps affect positive patient behaviour change. Training can improve knowledge, confidence and capability of practice staff to better promote physical activity. Engagement in any physical activity promotion programme will depend on the degree to which it makes sense to patients and professions, and is seen as trustworthy.Co-designThe programme theory informed the co-design of a prototype intervention to: improve physical literacy among practice staff;describe/develop the role of a physical activity advisor who can encourage the use of local opportunities to be more active;and provide materials to support behaviour change.ConclusionsPrevious physical activity interventions in primary care have had limited effect. This may be because they have only partially addressed factors emerging in our programme theory. The co-designed prototype intervention aims to address all elements of this emergent theory, but needs further development and consideration alongside current schemes and contexts (including implications relevant to COVID-19), and testing in a future study. The integration of realist and co-design methods strengthened this study.

Call volume, triage outcomes, and protocols during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: Results of a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (UK), to describe volume and pattern of calls to emergency ambulance services, proportion of calls where an ambulance was dispatched, proportion conveyed to hospital, and features of triage used. METHODS: Semistructured electronic survey of all UK ambulance services (n = 13) and a request for routine service data on weekly call volumes for 22 weeks (February 1-July 3, 2020). Questionnaires and data request were emailed to chief executives and research leads followed by email and telephone reminders. The routine data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and questionnaire data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were received from 12 services. Call volume varied widely between services, with a UK peak at week 7 at 13.1% above baseline (service range -0.5% to +31.4%). All services ended the study period with a lower call volume than at baseline (service range -3.7% to -25.5%). Suspected COVID-19 calls across the UK totaled 604,146 (13.5% of all calls), with wide variation between services (service range 3.7% to 25.7%), and in service peaks of 11.4% to 44.5%. Ambulances were dispatched to 478,638 (79.2%) of these calls (service range 59.0% to 100.0%), with 262,547 (43.5%) resulting in conveyance to hospital (service range 32.0% to 53.9%). Triage models varied between services and over time. Two primary call triage systems were in use across the UK. There were a large number of products and arrangements used for secondary triage, with services using paramedics, nurses, and doctors to support decision making in the call center and on scene. Frequent changes to triage processes took place. CONCLUSIONS: Call volumes were highly variable. Case mix and workload changed significantly as COVID-19 calls displaced other calls. Triage models and prehospital outcomes varied between services. We urgently need to understand safety and effectiveness of triage models to inform care during further waves and pandemics.