Prevalence, predictors and outcomes of self-reported feedback for EMS professionals: a mixed-methods diary study

Bibliographic Details
Title: Prevalence, predictors and outcomes of self-reported feedback for EMS professionals: a mixed-methods diary study
Authors: Caitlin Wilson, Luke Budworth, Gillian Janes, Rebecca Lawton, Jonathan Benn
Source: BMC Emergency Medicine, Vol 24, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2024)
Publisher Information: BMC, 2024.
Publication Year: 2024
Collection: LCC:Special situations and conditions
LCC:Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid
Subject Terms: Feedback, Prehospital care, Emergency medical services, Professional development, Staff wellbeing, Diary methods, Special situations and conditions, RC952-1245, Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid, RC86-88.9
More Details: Abstract Background Providing feedback to healthcare professionals and organisations on performance or patient outcomes may improve care quality and professional development, particularly in Emergency Medical Services (EMS) where professionals make autonomous, complex decisions and current feedback provision is limited. This study aimed to determine the content and outcomes of feedback in EMS by measuring feedback prevalence, identifying predictors of receiving feedback, categorising feedback outcomes and determining predictors of feedback efficacy. Methods An observational mixed-methods study was used. EMS professionals delivering face-to-face patient care in the United Kingdom’s National Health Service completed a baseline survey and diary entries between March-August 2022. Diary entries were event-contingent and collected when a participant identified they had received feedback. Self-reported data were collected on feedback frequency, environment, characteristics and outcomes. Feedback environment was measured using the Feedback Environment Scale. Feedback outcomes were categorised using hierarchical cluster analysis. Multilevel logistic regression was used to assess which variables predicted feedback receipt and efficacy. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis. Results 299 participants completed baseline surveys and 105 submitted 538 diary entries. 215 (71.9%) participants had received feedback in the last 30 days, with patient outcome feedback the most frequent (n = 149, 42.8%). Feedback format was predominantly verbal (n = 157, 73.0%) and informal (n = 189, 80.4%). Significant predictors for receiving feedback were a paramedic role (aOR 3.04 [1.14, 8.00]), a workplace with a positive feedback-seeking culture (aOR 1.07 [1.04, 1.10]) and white ethnicity (aOR 5.68 [1.01, 29.73]). Feedback outcomes included: personal wellbeing (closure, confidence and job satisfaction), professional development (clinical practice and knowledge) and service outcomes (patient care and patient safety). Feedback-seeking behaviour and higher scores on the Feedback Environment Scale were statistically significant predictors of feedback efficacy. Solicited feedback improved wellbeing (aOR 3.35 [1.68, 6.60]) and professional development (aOR 2.58 [1.10, 5.56]) more than unsolicited feedback. Conclusion Feedback for EMS professionals was perceived to improve personal wellbeing, professional development and service outcomes. EMS workplaces need to develop a culture that encourages feedback-seeking to strengthen the impact of feedback for EMS professionals on clinical decision-making and staff wellbeing.
Document Type: article
File Description: electronic resource
Language: English
ISSN: 1471-227X
Relation: https://doaj.org/toc/1471-227X
DOI: 10.1186/s12873-024-01082-y
Access URL: https://doaj.org/article/e79f8bf59565459e9acaf7edd8890508
Accession Number: edsdoj.79f8bf59565459e9acaf7edd8890508
Database: Directory of Open Access Journals
Full text is not displayed to guests.
More Details
ISSN:1471227X
DOI:10.1186/s12873-024-01082-y
Published in:BMC Emergency Medicine
Language:English