Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:46:25.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

It’s Time to Talk to Prehospital Providers: Feedback Disparities among Ground-Based Emergency Medical Services Providers and its Impact on Job Satisfaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2021

Sarayna S. McGuire ,
Anuradha Luke ,
Aaron B. Klassen Open the ORCID record for Aaron B. Klassen [Opens in a new window] ,
Lucas A. Myers ,
Aidan F. Mullan  and
Matthew D. Sztajnkrycer Open the ORCID record for Matthew D. Sztajnkrycer [Opens in a new window]
Sarayna S. McGuire
Affiliation:
Division of Prehospital Care, Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MinnesotaUSA
Anuradha Luke
Affiliation:
Division of Prehospital Care, Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MinnesotaUSA
Aaron B. Klassen
Affiliation:
Division of Prehospital Care, Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MinnesotaUSA
Lucas A. Myers
Affiliation:
Division of Prehospital Care, Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MinnesotaUSA
Aidan F. Mullan
Affiliation:
Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MinnesotaUSA
Matthew D. Sztajnkrycer*
Affiliation:
Division of Prehospital Care, Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MinnesotaUSA
*
Correspondence: Matthew D. Sztajnkrycer, MD, PhD Department of Emergency Medicine Mayo Clinic 200 First St SW GE-GR-G410 Rochester, Minnesota55905USA E-mail: Sztajnkrycer.matthew@mayo.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Performance feedback on clinical care and patient outcomes is a cornerstone of medical education, yet it remains lacking in the prehospital environment. Research seeking to establish the quantity of feedback provided to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) has been limited and studies focused on complimentary feedback or how feedback relates to EMS job satisfaction are lacking. The objectives of this study were to measure the frequency and nature of feedback received by EMS agencies and to identify the importance of receiving feedback as it relates to EMS job satisfaction.

Methods:

This was an anonymous, survey-based study of twenty-nine Basic Life Support (BLS) and fifteen Advanced Life Support (ALS) agencies located in Southeastern Minnesota (USA). Descriptive statistics and Fisher exact tests were used. The study was deemed exempt by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board.

Results:

Ninety-four responses were included from nineteen different EMS agencies, including sixty-one (64.9%) paramedics and thirty-three (35.1%) emergency medical technicians (EMTs). One-half of all respondents reported that they had not received any type of feedback in the past 30 days, while another 43.6% of respondents indicated that they had only received feedback one to three times in the same time period. Twenty (60.6%) EMTs reported receiving no feedback in the past 30 days, compared with twenty-seven (44.3%) paramedics (P = .123). Of respondents receiving feedback, 65.9% reported never or rarely receiving positive reinforcing feedback and 60.6% reported never or rarely receiving constructive criticism or feedback regarding something that did not go well with patient care or transport. The majority of respondents were dissatisfied with the quantity (86.1%) and quality (73.4%) of feedback received. An overwhelming majority (93.6%) indicated that feedback on patient care or outcomes was important in influencing their overall job satisfaction. This high importance was maintained across all demographic groups.

Conclusion:

Within the cohort of survey respondents, a paucity of feedback received by EMS personnel is a source of dissatisfaction for EMS providers. Feedback on patient care strongly relates to overall job satisfaction. These findings suggest system-wide opportunities for structured feedback processes, focusing upon both quality and quantity of delivered feedback, to improve both patient care and staff satisfaction.

Keywords

Emergency Medical Servicesemergency medical techniciansfeedbackjob satisfactionparamedicsprehospital
Type
Special Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2021 , pp. 486 - 494
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ende, J. Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA. 1983;250(6):777–781.10.1001/jama.1983.03340060055026CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, E, Richards, JB. Medical education: giving feedback to doctors in training. BMJ. 2019;366:l4523.10.1136/bmj.l4523CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El Boghdady, M, Alijani, A. Feedback in surgical education. Surgeon. 2017;15(2):98–103.10.1016/j.surge.2016.06.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nussenbaum, B, Chole, RA. Rethinking morbidity and mortality conference. Otolaryngol Clin N Am. 2019;52(1):47–53.10.1016/j.otc.2018.08.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonazalo, JD, Yang, JJ, Huang, GC. Systems-based content in medical morbidity and mortality conferences: a decade of change. J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4(4):438–444.10.4300/JGME-D-12-00016.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, RE, Crowe, RP, Rodriguez, SA, Panchal, AR. Disparities in feedback provision to emergency medical services professionals. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017;21(6):773–781.10.1080/10903127.2017.1328547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, L, Cassidy, L, Welsford, M, Chan, TM. Clinical performance feedback to paramedics: what they receive and what they need. SAEM. 2017;1(2):87–97.Google ScholarPubMed
Tsai, D, Choi, B, Sullivan, F, Willias, KA. Quality improvement in EMS: a unique and challenging necessity. R I Med J. 2014;97(8):17–19.Google ScholarPubMed
Li, T, Munder, SP, Chaudhry, A, Madan, R, Gribko, M, Arora, R. Emergency medical services providers’ knowledge, practices, and barriers to stroke management. Open Access Emerg Med. 2019;11:297–303.10.2147/OAEM.S228240CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oostema, JA, Chassee, T, Baer, W, Edberg, A, Reeves, MJ. Brief educational intervention improves emergency medical services stroke recognition. Stroke. 2019;50(5):1193–1200.10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023885CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, B, Tsai, D, McGillivray, CG, Amedee, C, Sarafin, J, Silver, B. Hospital-directed feedback to emergency medical services improves prehospital performance. Stroke. 2014;45(7):2137–2140.10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.005679CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siriwardena, AN, Shaw, D, Essam, N, et al. The effect of a national quality improvement collaborative on prehospital care for acute myocardial infarction and stroke in England. Implement Sci. 2014;9:17.10.1186/1748-5908-9-17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weston, BW, Jasti, J, Lerner, EB, Szabo, A, Aufderheide, TP, Colella, MR. Does an individualized feedback mechanism improve quality of out-of-hospital CPR? Resuscitation. 2017;113:96–100.10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.02.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrahill, M, Gunnels, D. Providing follow-up to prehospital care providers. J Emerg Nurs. 1999;25(3):244–245.10.1016/S0099-1767(99)70215-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2020 Minnesota Statutes. 144.293 Release or disclosure of health records. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/144.293. Accessed December 27, 2020.Google Scholar