Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-jr2wd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-23T02:35:12.131Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

What do community paramedics assess? An environmental scan and content analysis of patient assessment in community paramedicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2019

Matthew S. Leyenaar*
Affiliation:
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Ontario Community Paramedicine (Secretariat), ON Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Local Health Integration Network, Grimsby, ON
Brent McLeod
Affiliation:
Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Local Health Integration Network, Grimsby, ON Hamilton Paramedic Service, Hamilton, ON Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
Sarah Penhearow
Affiliation:
Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON
Ryan Strum
Affiliation:
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Ontario Community Paramedicine (Secretariat), ON
Madison Brydges
Affiliation:
Department of Health, Aging and Society, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
Eric Mercier
Affiliation:
Département de Médecine Familiale et Médecine d'Urgence, Faculté de Médecine de l'Université Laval, Quebec, QC
Audrey-Anne Brousseau
Affiliation:
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Floyd Besserer
Affiliation:
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC British Columbia Emergency Health Services, Vancouver, BC
Gina Agarwal
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
Walter Tavares
Affiliation:
The Wilson Centre and Post MD Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON York Region Paramedic and Senior Services, Regional Municipality of York, Toronto, ON
Andrew P. Costa
Affiliation:
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Ontario Community Paramedicine (Secretariat), ON Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
*
Correspondence to: Matthew S. Leyenaar, McMaster University CRL-219, 1280 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1; Email: leyenam@mcmaster.ca

Abstract

Objectives

Patient assessment is a fundamental feature of community paramedicine, but the absence of a recognized standard for assessment practices contributes to uncertainty about what drives care planning and treatment decisions. Our objective was to summarize the content of assessment instruments and describe the state of current practice in community paramedicine home visit programs.

Methods

We performed an environmental scan of all community paramedicine programs in Ontario, Canada, and used content analysis to describe current assessment practices in home visit programs. The International Classification on Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) was used to categorize and compare assessments. Each item within each assessment form was classified according to the ICF taxonomy.

Results

A total of 43 of 52 paramedic services in Ontario, Canada, participated in the environmental scan with 24 being eligible for further investigation through content analysis of intake assessment forms. Among the 24 services, 16 met inclusion criteria for content analysis. Assessment forms contained between 13 and 252 assessment items (median 116.5, IQR 134.5). Most assessments included some content from each of the domains outlined in the ICF. At the subdomain level, only assessment of impairments of the functions of the cardiovascular, hematological, immunological, and respiratory systems appeared in all assessments.

Conclusion

Although community paramedicine home visit programs may differ in design and aim, all complete multi-domain assessments as part of patient intake. If community paramedicine home visit programs share similar characteristics but assess patients differently, it is difficult to expect that the resulting referrals, care planning, treatments, or interventions will be similar.

Résumé

Objectifs

L’évaluation des patients est un élément fondamental de la pratique de la paramédecine communautaire, mais l'absence de norme reconnue en matière d’évaluation contribue à l'incertitude qui plane sur les facteurs pris en considération dans la planification des soins et les prises de décision relatives au traitement. L’étude visait donc à présenter un résumé du contenu des instruments d’évaluation et à décrire l’état de la pratique actuelle dans les programmes de visites à domicile en paramédecine communautaire.

Méthode

L’étude consistait en une analyse environnementale de tous les programmes de paramédecine communautaire offerts en Ontario et en une analyse de contenu visant à décrire les pratiques actuelles d’évaluation des patients appliquées dans le cadre des programmes de visites à domicile. Les chercheurs se sont référés à la Classification internationale du fonctionnement, du handicap et de la santé (CIF) pour comparer et classer les évaluations, et chacun des éléments inscrits sur chaque formulaire d’évaluation a été classé selon la taxonomie de la CIF.

Résultats

Au total, 43 services paramédicaux sur 52, en Ontario, ont participé à l'analyse environnementale, dont 24 se prêtaient à une recherche approfondie reposant sur une analyse de contenu des formulaires d’évaluation initiale. Sur les 24 services, 16 répondaient aux critères de sélection en vue d'une analyse de contenu. Le nombre d’éléments évalués variait de 13 à 252 selon les formulaires (médiane : 116,5; écart interquartile : 134,5). La plupart des questionnaires contenaient des éléments tirés de chacun des domaines inscrits dans la CIF. Au niveau des sous-domaines, seule l’évaluation des troubles de fonctionnement des systèmes cardiovasculaire, sanguin, immunitaire et respiratoire figuraient sur tous les formulaires.

Conclusion

Les programmes de visites à domicile en paramédecine communautaire peuvent certes avoir des différences de conception et de but, mais ils permettent tous une évaluation pluridimensionnelle des nouveaux patients. Si les programmes de visites à domicile en paramédecine communautaire ont des caractéristiques communes mais des formes d’évaluation différentes, il est difficile de s'attendre à des résultats comparables en ce qui concerne les consultations, les plans de soins, les traitements et les interventions.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2019 

CLINICIAN'S CAPSULE

What is known about the topic?

Community paramedics perform patient assessments to establish physical and psychosocial health, care needs, and health risks at intake.

What did this study ask?

What is assessed in community paramedicine home visit programs at intake, and does it vary across paramedic services?

What did this study find?

We found a wide range of assessment practices suggesting that there may be inconsistencies in care planning and resources across services.

Why does this study matter to clinicians?

Community paramedic training and practice guidelines can build from standardized descriptions of assessment practices to help avoid inconsistent patient care.

INTRODUCTION

Community paramedicine provides patients with access to scheduled or immediate healthcare in collaboration with other providers across the continuum of care.1 Community paramedicine programs are alternatives to traditional ambulance response and transportReference Jensen, Carter and Rose2Reference Choi, Blumberg and Williams6 and aim to address overburdened emergency departments (ED) and fragmented primary care. They are broadly described by their activities, such as supporting transitions from the ED (e.g., hospital to home), assessing and referring to community-based programs, and providing direct preventive care and chronic disease management support.Reference Lau, Hollander and Cushman7Reference Drennan, Dainty and Hoogeveen10 Growing evidence supports the effectiveness of community paramedicine programs in reducing 9-1-1 calls, improving chronic disease management, and enhancing access to community-based care.Reference Lau, Hollander and Cushman7Reference Agarwal, McDonough and Angeles9,Reference Abrashkin, Washko and Zhang11 Despite growing evidence and funding, community paramedicine programs raise important questions about training, knowledge base, consistency of care, scope of care, and paramedic roles in the larger healthcare system.Reference Bigham, Kennedy, Drennan and Morrison3,Reference O'Meara4,Reference Choi, Blumberg and Williams6,12,Reference Leyenaar, Mcleod and Chan13

In the course of their duties, community paramedics perform patient assessments – often in a patient's home – to establish physical, psychological, and psychosocial healthcare needs and risks that may have negative impacts on patient health.Reference Agarwal, McDonough and Angeles9Reference Abrashkin, Washko and Zhang11,Reference Crockett, Jasiak and Walroth14Reference Mason, Wardrope and Perrin17 Assessment is the basis for determining an appropriate course of action, such as initiating preventive care, treatment, and/or referral. Community paramedics can identify patient health needs that may only be apparent in the home, including neglect and abuseReference O'Meara, Stirling and Ruest18,Reference Rosen, Lien and Stern19 and other safety concerns. What is assessed in any patient interaction is closely related to paramedic education and clinical training, thus serving as the basis to guide practice.Reference O'Meara, Stirling and Ruest18 Minimal available information on the assessment content and practices of community paramedicine programs limits training and development of care guidelines.

Our objective was to inspect and summarize the content of assessment instruments used at time of patient intake or enrolment in community paramedicine home visit programs to inform efforts to evolve community paramedicine program evaluation, training, continuing education, and care guidelines. We hypothesized that the content of community paramedicine assessments would vary markedly across programs, but that some health domains would be assessed consistently across programs.

METHODS

Study design

We conducted an environmental scan and content analysis of community paramedicine home visit programs in Ontario, Canada, between December 4, 2017, and March 15, 2018. Environmental scans establish a network of healthcare stakeholders and scan the network to better understand policies and practices.Reference Hatch and Pearson20Reference Graham, Evitts and Thomas-MacLean22 Content analysis can be used to draw inferences about documents, picture, audio, and video.Reference Krippendorff23,Reference Elo and Kyngäs24 Directed content analysis of community paramedicine home visit assessment instruments was used to investigate the state of assessment content across programs.Reference Hsieh and Shannon25 This study was exempt from formal review by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board based on the lack of direct human participant data collection and low risk.

Setting

We selected the province of Ontario in Canada to conduct the environmental scan given that it has a growing elderly population,26 a fragmented primary care structure,27,Reference Marchildon and Hutchison28 and we were aware that community paramedicine programs have been implemented across the province by many of the 52 paramedic services. In Ontario, community paramedicine programs are eligible for funding through Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN), which are regional administrative organizations of the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care responsible for funding hospitals, long-term care, and home and community care. In isolated instances, paramedic services may initiate community paramedicine programming through other funding sources (municipal, third-party grants, other healthcare partners). There are no mandated or regulated criteria for training, education, or certification for community paramedics. Both primary care and advanced care paramedics may be used to staff community paramedicine programs and conduct patient assessments. We focused on home visit programs given that they are a broadly implemented community paramedicine care model, target similar patients (frequent 9-1-1 users), and use a formal patient assessment at intake. Generalizations of assessment practices across other models of community paramedicine (such as referral or clinic-based programs) would be limited by a relatively small number of comparisons.

Data collection

A short questionnaire was used to determine basic characteristics of community paramedicine programming at each paramedic service (see Box 1). Two investigators (ML and BM) piloted the questionnaire on three services each and revised it after discussing initial responses. The questionnaire was used to request a blank copy of the intake assessment form used for each service's home visit programs (if services operated such a program). We obtained a list of all paramedic services from a roster of recent invitees to a provincial Community Paramedicine Forum (including management, providers, and administrative support) and then contacted each by phone. When required, voicemail messages were left, and follow-up email correspondence was sent. Our protocol stipulated that multiple attempts should be made to provide paramedic services with adequate opportunity to answer questions about their community paramedicine programs and to achieve a minimal response rate of 80% for the environmental scan. Responses were recorded in a securely shared Google form (G Suite for Education, Menlo Park, CA, 2018). Three reminder emails were sent to paramedic services who indicated that they were willing to share their community paramedicine assessment forms but had not done so.

Box 1. Content of the questionnaire used to conduct an environmental scan

  1. 1. Service name, contact name, contact position

  2. 2. Which statement best reflects community paramedicine programming in your service?

    1. a. Currently providing, no plans for future expansion in the coming year

    2. b. Currently providing, and planning future expansion in the coming year

    3. c. Planning to implement in the coming year, but not presently providing

    4. d. Not providing and not planning to provide in the coming year

  3. 3. If community paramedicine programming is presently implemented, which statement best reflects the type of program(s)?

    1. a. Referral program (referral to care provided by other organizations)

    2. b. Clinic-based program

    3. c. Home visit program with remote patient monitoring (example: CPRPMReference Brohman, Green and Dixon29)

    4. d. Home visit program without remote patient monitoring

    5. e. Other

  4. 4. If you are planning new or additional community paramedicine programming, which statement best reflects the type of program(s)?

    1. a. Referral program

    2. b. Clinic-based program

    3. c. Home visit program with remote patient monitoring

    4. d. Home visit program without remote patient monitoring

    5. e. Other

  5. 5. In general terms, what level of priority does community paramedicine have in your service?

  6. 6. Are you willing to share your home visit intake assessment form?

Content analysis

Our content analysis used the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), an internationally recognized taxonomy and common language for patient assessment content. The ICF, together with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), form the Family of International Classifications of the World Health Organization.30 The ICF is a hierarchical taxonomy that categorizes individual assessment items into discrete domains and subdomains.31 It includes four primary domains (Impairments of Body Functions, Impairments of Body Structures, Activity Limitations and Participation Restriction, and Environmental Factors) as well as Demographic Information.31 Demographic Information can include pertinent information about social factors and fits within the ICF framework for providing context to the biopsychosocial model of classification. The domain, Impairments of Body Functions, for example, is divided into subdomains based on the body system involved (mental functions, sensory functions and pain, voice and speech functions, and so on). Each subdomain is further divided into categories according to specific functions of the specific system. For example, mental functions is further divided into specific categories such as consciousness, orientation, memory, and language (to name a few). Content from each of the assessment forms was classified at the category level, but for the purposes of this study, results were reported at the domain and subdomain levels to aid in comparison. We used a deductive approach to categorize paramedic assessment forms with the ICF by classifying each assessment item in each form according to the ICF.Reference Krippendorff23

Three reviewers with expertise in assessment practices (ML, BM, AC) completed the content analysis. The most comprehensive community paramedicine assessment form was used to calibrate processes for classification between the reviewers. Each blank fillable field was considered an assessment item, except where logic dictated that a field would not be filled (i.e., No Known Allergies [NKA] and a list containing medications such as aspirin, penicillin, sulfa). Any items that were determined to not fit within the ICF framework were then classified as “other.” After completing the calibration meeting, two reviewers (ML, BM) conducted content analysis independently following the same approach on all remaining assessment forms. Any items that were classified as “other” were then grouped together under descriptive headings and assigned to an ICF domain. An adjudication meeting was held to resolve any differences in classification by the third reviewer (AC), providing a final classification for all assessment items for all assessment forms. Agreement rates were calculated for the content analysed independently by the two reviewers against the final classification. Basic descriptive statistics were used to report the findings.

RESULTS

Responses from 43 of 52 paramedic services were received to achieve the predetermined response rate for the environmental scan of 80%. Non-responding paramedic services were from a mix of urban and rural areas and of varying sizes. Respondents represented a variety of job classifications from chief to front-line community paramedic. Responses to the level of priority community paramedicine held within a service were mixed. Thirty-seven (86%) paramedic services indicated that they were operating a community paramedicine program, and 28 indicated that they were planning expansion in the coming year. Twenty-six (70%) paramedic services indicated that they provided a home visit program. Of the 26 paramedic services, 24 (92%) indicated that they used a formal intake assessment, with 18 of 26 (69%) providing their intake assessment forms for content analysis. After preliminary screening, it was determined that two forms were actually intake forms that contained solely administrative information from outside referring agencies. Sixteen assessment forms were included for content analysis (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Flowchart illustrating results of environmental scan that produced 16 intake assessment forms for content analysis.

Thirteen assessment forms were either paper-based or fillable PDF format, and three were provided as screenshots from electronic forms. Assessment forms contained between 13 and 252 assessment items (median 116.5, IQR 134.5) (see Appendix A, Table 1). Two assessment forms were exact matches for content.

The agreement percentage at the domain and subdomain levels was high for both raters against the final classification. Rater 1 agreed with the final classification 99.0% and 95.1% of the time at the domain and subdomain levels, respectively. Rater 2 agreed with the final classification 92.6% and 89.1% of the time at the domain and subdomain levels, respectively. Kappa was not calculated because of the adjudication process; we were not interested in the two independent reviewers’ agreement with each other, but with the final classification that was discussed (biasing the element of chance).

At the domain level, all assessments included Demographic Information and assessment of Impairments of Body Functions (relating to different organ systems). Fifteen assessments included the assessment of Environmental Factors (such as physical living conditions or information about social supports). Fourteen assessments (88%) included the assessment of Impairments of Body Structures (relating to different organ systems) and assessment of Activity Limitations and Participation Restriction (such as exercise, hobbies, or taking care of one's health). Appendix A (published as supplementary material online) includes a summary of content within ICF domains and subdomains across community paramedicine home visit assessments.

Most assessments included multiple items classified within multiple subdomains of Impairments of Body Functions. All community paramedicine assessments included function of the cardiovascular, hematological, immunological or respiratory systems, whereas no assessments specifically assessed voice and speech function or functions of the skin and related structures and only one included neuromusculoskeletal and movement-related functions. For any specific subdomain of Impairments of Body Structures, less than half of the community paramedicine assessments included content, and the median number of items within this domain was 3.5 – lowest for any of the four domains. Within the Activity Limitations and Participation Restriction domain, the subdomains with the greatest amount of content were items classified under either mobility or self-care. Environmental Factors was the domain with the highest median number of items, 25. The subdomains within Environmental Factors that had the greatest amount of content were services, systems, and policies, and support and relationships.

Table 1 details the 164 assessment items across the 14 community paramedicine programs that could not be classified at the category level within the ICF (classified as Other). Items were assigned to the closest acceptable ICF domain wherever possible with any remaining items remaining with as a separate Other group. A median of nine items could not be classified for each assessment across three identified domains, Demographic Information, Activity Limitation and Participation Restriction, and Environmental Factors or the separate Other group. Most prevalent in the separate Other group was information about medications followed by information pertaining to either Do Not Resuscitate or Advance Care Planning.

Table 1. Summary of community paramedicine home visit program assessment content (by number of items) classified as “other” by descriptive category (not ICF subdomain)

*Median total number of items in each domain and subdomain.

†Proportion of programs assessing at least one item from each category (domain and sub-domain).

XRepresented no data/zero items.

Table 2 summarizes assessment items found within each ICF subdomain by prevalence across community paramedicine home visit programs. Assessment items classified under a small number of subdomains were found to be highly prevalent. These were items pertaining to functions of the cardiovascular, hematological, immunological, and respiratory systems; mental functions; functions of the digestive, metabolic, and endocrine systems; mobility; self-care; services, systems, and policies; and existing medical diagnoses. Many more assessment items were found to be inconsistently assessed across ICF subdomains. The low prevalence for multiple subdomains is reflected in the bottom two rows of Table 2.

Table 2. Prevalence of specific assessment items found within each International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) domain across community paramedicine home visit assessments

DISCUSSION

We found that most ICF assessment domains are being considered to varying lengths and depths in almost all community paramedicine assessments. The fact that some ICF subdomains were assessed in some community paramedicine programs with one or two items, whereas other community paramedicine programs assessed most ICF subdomains with many items, demonstrates this variety. That all of the included community paramedicine programs had assessment items in the ICF subdomain, functions of the cardiovascular, hematological, immunological, and respiratory systems, suggests that patients enrolled in community paramedicine home visit programs likely have a high prevalence of diseases and conditions associated with these systems such as diabetes, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or congestive heart failure. Examples of these assessment items included basic vital signs and other diagnostics within a primary care paramedic scope of practice, such as pulse oximetry, 12-lead EKG, or blood glucometry. In general, paramedic training and education includes an emphasis on the life-threats associated with these systems, which likely also contributed to the prevalence of assessment items aligned with this subdomain.32

Limitations

Community paramedicine home visit programs are a new service model for paramedic practice with a relative paucity of clinical guidelines to anchor practice.Reference Bigham, Kennedy, Drennan and Morrison3 Determining the state of current community paramedicine assessment practice through an investigation of intake assessment forms using content analysis relies on certain assumptions about documentation standards and quality assurance processes, which have not necessarily been formalized. By using the ICF as a mechanism to classify content, we also assumed that some baseline criteria for assessment practice could be identified between different paramedic services that may employ paramedics with differing scopes of practice or whose community paramedicine programs may have different designs or objectives. One characteristic of community paramedicine programs is that they are designed in response to locally identified needs,Reference Bigham, Kennedy, Drennan and Morrison3,Reference O'Meara4,Reference Leyenaar, Mcleod and Chan13 meaning that finding differences in assessment practices would be likely. Although this suggests that inherent differences should be expected, a recent review of case management and care planning in community paramedicine home visit programs found that common attributes existed in the patient populations served by these programs across multiple jurisdictions.Reference Leyenaar, Mcleod and Chan13 Although our study was conducted in one province only, sampling 16 different community paramedicine home visit programs likely demonstrates that many of the differences in the scope of paramedic practice and in program design would be expected in a national sample.

Our content analysis of assessment items is an investigation of the opportunity to document assessment findings. It is assumed that the intake assessment conducted by a community paramedic in a home visit program should be completed in full and would be comprehensive enough to direct subsequent care planning without requiring secondary or subsequent assessment. Formalizing the assessment training process for community paramedics and developing assessment guidelines may address whether or not this is true. Even so, differences between community paramedicine program assessments at the subdomain level were observed in many areas. For example, falls prevention is a common focus of community paramedicine programs.1 Falls prevention is a complex and multi-faceted approach where the benefits of assessment of falls risk have been demonstrated.Reference Gillespie, Robertson and Gillespie33 We found that most community paramedicine home visit programs included an assessment of mobility (see Table 2), suggesting a consistency of focus in this area. However, only one of the community paramedicine home visit programs assessed structures related to the genitourinary and reproductive system and genitourinary and reproductive functions. Urinary incontinence is associated with increased odds of fallingReference Chiarelli, Mackenzie and Osmotherly34Reference Noguchi, Chan and Cumming37 and has been identified as an area of falls prevention programs that requires improved assessment and surveillance,Reference Gillespie, Robertson and Gillespie33 which means that it is a strong area for guideline development and education in the future. Determining whether or not assessment of continence should or should not be assessed by community paramedics requires further inquiry. Similar arguments can be made about the rationale for many of the ICF subdomains where items were not assessed consistently across the community paramedicine home visit programs that participated in our study. If community paramedics are indiscriminately conducting assessments based on ICF subdomains that they perceive as valuable without evidence informed guidelines or education, then it is possible that some may be missing out on key areas that may help them achieve their intended goals for care.

Implications

Community paramedicine home visit assessment forms vary in depth, suggesting that assessment practices and, potentially, care vary across services sampled in Ontario. Previously published studies about community paramedicine programs in OntarioReference Drennan, Dainty and Hoogeveen10,Reference Ruest, Stitchman and Day15 suggest that specific program aims likely contribute to this variation. But, if community paramedicine home visit programs do share similar characteristics (in terms of population served and goals for care), yet assess patients differently, it is difficult to expect that the resulting referrals, care planning, treatments, or interventions will be similar. In turn, such differences will also likely result in inequalities in patient care between different locations. General health assessment practices have evolved to consider multiple disease processes across multiple care settings with the ability to integrate with other care providersReference Wellens, Deschodt and Flamaing38 – all criteria that should guide assessment practices in community paramedicine because patient assessment is foundational to managing care plans, collaborating with other care providers, and providing interventions.Reference Wears and Wolfson39Reference Colbeck, Maria and Eaton41 The importance of assessment has been demonstrated in traditional paramedic practiceReference Colbeck, Maria and Eaton41 and often underlies program delivery in community paramedicine.Reference Bigham, Kennedy, Drennan and Morrison3,Reference O'Meara4,Reference Leyenaar, Mcleod and Chan13,Reference O'Meara, Stirling and Ruest18 Future work regarding the minimum threshold for intake assessments in community paramedicine home visit programs should engage stakeholders to determine the appropriateness of the assessment areas that have been summarized here.

CONCLUSION

Community paramedicine home visit program assessments cover all domains of the ICF, yet the number of assessment items is often limited and highly variable across services. Relative consistency was observed for the assessment of the functions of the cardiovascular, hematological, immunological or respiratory systems. Other commonly assessed subdomains were mental functions; functions of the digestive, metabolic, and endocrine systems; mobility; self-care; and utilization of support services, systems, and policies. Identifying a minimum threshold for patient assessment and consolidating assessment practices could promote the development of community paramedic training and contribute to clinical guidelines for community paramedic practice. By summarizing the content of assessment instruments and describing the state of current practice in community paramedicine home visit programs, it is possible for community paramedicine programs to reflect on specific assessment domains that may be contributing to achieving their goals for patient care.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the following Ontario paramedic services and thank them for providing content for analysis; County of Brant Ambulance Services, Dufferin County Paramedic Service, Essex-Windsor Emergency Medical Services, Grey County Paramedic Services, Hamilton Paramedic Services, Lambton Emergency Medical Services, Lanark County Paramedic Services, Leeds-Grenville Paramedic Service, Niagara Emergency Medical Services, Norfolk County Paramedic Services, Prescott Russell Paramedic Service, County of Renfrew Paramedic Services, Superior North Emergency Medical Services, Greater Sudbury Paramedic Services, Toronto Paramedic Services, and York Region Paramedic Services.

Competing interests

None declared.

Prior presentations

2018 Achieving Excellence Together, Annual Conference of Health Shared Services Ontario, Toronto, ON, June 19, 2018

Funding

ML received support for this research from the Canadian Frailty Network, Mitacs, Canadian Institute for Health Research, and the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Local Health Integration Network (formerly the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Community Care Access Centre).

Author contributions

ML, AC, and BM conceived the study. ML and BM developed and performed the survey. SP managed survey responses and follow-up. ML, AC, and BM performed the content analysis. ML prepared the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed substantially to the design and methodology of the study and to the writing and critical editing of this manuscript.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2019.379

References

REFERENCES

1.CSA Group. Community paramedicine: framework for program development. Toronto, ON: CSA Group; 2017.Google Scholar
2.Jensen, JL, Carter, AJE, Rose, J, et al. Alternatives to traditional EMS dispatch and transport: a scoping review of reported outcomes. CJEM 2015;17(5):532–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Bigham, BL, Kennedy, SM, Drennan, I, Morrison, LJ. Expanding paramedic scope of practice in the community: a systematic review of the literature. Prehosp Emerg Care 2013;17(3):361–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.O'Meara, P. Community paramedics: a scoping review of their emergence and potential impact. Int Paramed Pract 2014;4(1):512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Iezzoni, LI, Dorner, SC, Ajayi, T. Community paramedicine – addressing questions as programs expand. N Engl J Med 2016;374(12):1107–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Choi, BY, Blumberg, C, Williams, K. Mobile integrated health care and community paramedicine: an emerging emergency medical services concept. Ann Emerg Med 2016;67(3):361–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Lau, HS, Hollander, MM, Cushman, JT, et al. Qualitative evaluation of the coach training within a community paramedicine care transitions intervention. Prehosp Emerg Care 2018;22(4):527–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Verma, AA, Klich, J, Thurston, A, et al. Paramedic-initiated home care referrals and use of home care and emergency medical services. Prehosp Emerg Care 2017;0(0):16.Google Scholar
9.Agarwal, G, McDonough, B, Angeles, R, et al. Rationale and methods of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of a Community Health Assessment Programme with Emergency Medical Services (CHAP-EMS) implemented on residents aged 55 years and older in subsidised seniors’ housing. BMJ Open 2015;5(6):17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Drennan, IR, Dainty, KN, Hoogeveen, P, et al. Expanding paramedicine in the community (EPIC): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014;15(473):110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Abrashkin, KA, Washko, J, Zhang, J, et al. Providing acute care at home: community paramedics enhance an advanced illness management program – preliminary data. J Am Geriatr Soc 2016;64(12):2572–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Newsroom: Ontario expanding community role for paramedics; 2014. Available at: https://news.ontario.ca/mohltc/en/2014/01/ontario-expanding-community-role-for-paramedics.html (accessed August 20, 2018).Google Scholar
13.Leyenaar, M, Mcleod, B, Chan, J, et al. A scoping study and qualitative assessment of care planning and case management in community paramedicine. Irish J Paramed 2018;3:115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Crockett, BM, Jasiak, KD, Walroth, TA, et al. Pharmacist involvement in a community paramedicine team; 2016. Available at: http://jpp.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0897190016631893 (accessed December 28, 2016).Google Scholar
15.Ruest, M, Stitchman, A, Day, C. Evaluating the impact on 911 calls by an in-home programme with a multidisciplinary team. Int Paramed Pract 2012;1(4):125–32.Google Scholar
16.Swain, AH, Hoyle, SR, Long, AW. The changing face of prehospital care in New Zealand: the role of extended care paramedics. J New Zeal Med Assoc 2010;19(123):114.Google Scholar
17.Mason, S, Wardrope, J, Perrin, J. Developing a community paramedic practitioner intermediate care support scheme for older people with minor conditions. Emerg Med J 2003;20(2):196–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.O'Meara, P, Stirling, C, Ruest, M. Community paramedicine model of care: an observational, ethnographic case study. BMC Health Serv Res 2016;16(1):39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Rosen, T, Lien, C, Stern, ME, et al. Emergency medical services perspectives on identifying and reporting victims of elder abuse, neglect, and self-neglect. J Emerg Med 2017;53(4):573–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Hatch, TF, Pearson, TG. Using environmental scans in educational needs assessment. J Contin Educ Health Prof 1998;18(3):179–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Rowel, R, Dewberry Moore, N, Nowrojee, S, et al. The utility of the environmental scan for public health practice: lessons from an urban program to increase cancer screening. J Natl Med Assoc 2005;97(4):527–34.Google ScholarPubMed
22.Graham, P, Evitts, T, Thomas-MacLean, R. Environmental scans: how useful are they for primary care research? Can Fam Physician 2008;54(7):1022–3.Google ScholarPubMed
23.Krippendorff, K. Content analysis. In International encyclopedia of communications. Oxford University Press; 1989, 403–7. Available at: http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/226 (accessed August 10, 2017).Google Scholar
24.Elo, S, Kyngäs, H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008;62(1):107–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Hsieh, H-F, Shannon, SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005;15(9):1277–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Canada. Population projections for Canada, provinces and territories; 2009. Available at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91-520-x/91-520-x2010001-eng.htm (accessed October 10, 2018).Google Scholar
27.Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Patients first: a proposal to strengthen patient-centred health care in Ontario; 2015, 124. Available at: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/news/bulletin/2015/docs/discussion_paper_20151217.pdf (accessed October 10, 2018).Google Scholar
28.Marchildon, GP, Hutchison, B. Primary care in Ontario, Canada: new proposals after 15 years of reform. Health policy (New York). Sci Direct 2016;120(7):732–8.Google Scholar
29.Brohman, M, Green, M, Dixon, J, et al. Community paramedicine remote patient monitoring (CPRPM): benefits evaluation and lessons learned. Toronto, ON: ; 2018. Available at: https://infoway-inforoute.ca/en/what-we-do/news-events/webinars/resources/reports/benefits-evaluation/3542-community-paramedicine-remote-patient-monitoring-cprpm-benefits-evaluation-lessons-learned (accessed April 23, 2018).Google Scholar
30.World Health Organization. WHO Family of International Classifications (WHO-FIC); 2018. Available at: http://www.who.int/classifications/en/ (accessed August 20, 2018).Google Scholar
31.Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health ICF.: Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2002.Google Scholar
32.Paramedic Association of Canada. National occupational competency profile for paramedics; 2011. Available at: http://www.paramedic.ca/uploaded/web/documents/2011-10-31-Approved-NOCP-English-Master.pdf (accessed April 8, 2019).Google Scholar
33.Gillespie, LD, Robertson, MC, Gillespie, WJ, et al. Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;2(CD007146):CD007146.Google Scholar
34.Chiarelli, PE, Mackenzie, LA, Osmotherly, PG. Urinary incontinence is associated with an increase in falls: a systematic review. Aust J Physiother 2009;55(2):8995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Gale, CR, Cooper, C, Aihie Sayer, A. Prevalence and risk factors for falls in older men and women: the English longitudinal study of ageing. Age Ageing 2016;45(6):789–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Szabo, SM, Gooch, KL, Walker, DR, et al. The association between overactive bladder and falls and fractures: a systematic review. Advances in Therapy 2018; 35(11):1831–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Noguchi, N, Chan, L, Cumming, RG, et al. A systematic review of the association between lower urinary tract symptoms and falls, injuries, and fractures in community-dwelling older men. Aging Male 2016;19(3):168–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Wellens, NIH, Deschodt, M, Flamaing, J, et al. First-generation versus third-generation comprehensive geriatric assessment instruments in the acute hospital setting: a comparison of the Minimum Geriatric Screening Tools (MGST) and the interRAI Acute Care (interRAI AC). J Nutr Health Aging 2011;15(8):638–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.Wears, RL. Introduction: The Approach to the Patient in the Emergency Department. In: Harwood-Nuss’ clinical practice of emergency medicine (ed. Wolfson, AB). 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2015.Google Scholar
40.Brennan, J, Krohmer, J. Principles of EMS systems. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2006.Google Scholar
41.Colbeck, MA, Maria, S, Eaton, G, et al. International examination and synthesis of the primary and secondary surveys in paramedicine. Irish J Paramed 2018;3(2):19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Flowchart illustrating results of environmental scan that produced 16 intake assessment forms for content analysis.

Figure 1

Table 1. Summary of community paramedicine home visit program assessment content (by number of items) classified as “other” by descriptive category (not ICF subdomain)

Figure 2

Table 2. Prevalence of specific assessment items found within each International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) domain across community paramedicine home visit assessments

Supplementary material: File

Leyenaar et al. supplementary material

Appendix A

Download Leyenaar et al. supplementary material(File)
File 35 KB