Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ambulance clinicians use pre-alerts to inform receiving hospitals of the imminent arrival of a time-critical patient considered to require immediate attention, enabling the receiving emergency department (ED) or other clinical area to prepare. Pre-alerts are key to ensuring immediate access to appropriate care, but unnecessary pre-alerts can divert resources from other patients and fuel 'pre-alert fatigue' among ED staff. This research aims to provide a better understanding of pre-alert decision-making practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 ambulance clinicians from three ambulance services and 40 ED staff from six receiving EDs. Observation (162 hours) of responses to pre-alerts (n=143, call-to-handover) was also conducted in the six EDs. Interview transcripts and observation notes were imported into NVIVO and analysed using thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Pre-alert decisions involve rapid assessment of clinical risk based on physiological observations, clinical judgement and perceived risk of deterioration, with reference to pre-alert guidance. Clinical experience (pattern recognition and intuition) and confidence helped ambulance clinicians to understand which patients required immediate ED care on arrival or were at highest risk of deterioration. Ambulance clinicians primarily learnt to pre-alert 'on the job' and via informal feedback mechanisms, including the ED response to previous pre-alerts. Availability and access to clinical decision support was variable, and clinicians balanced the use of guidance and protocols with concerns about retention of clinical judgement and autonomy. Differences in pre-alert criteria between ambulance services and EDs created difficulties in deciding whether to pre-alert and was particularly challenging for less experienced clinicians. CONCLUSION: We identified potentially avoidable variation in decision-making, which has implications for patient care and emergency care resources, and can create tension between the services. Consistency in practice may be improved by greater standardisation of guidance and protocols, training and access to performance feedback and cross-service collaboration to minimise potential sources of tension.