Consensus on innovations and future directions of community first responder schemes in United Kingdom: a national nominal group technique study
We aimed to achieve consensus among NHS and community stakeholders to identify and prioritise innovations in Community First Responder (CFR) schemes. We conducted a mixed-methods study, adopting a modified nominal group technique with participants from ambulance services, CFR schemes and community s...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2024-09, Vol.32 (1), p.99-16, Article 99 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | We aimed to achieve consensus among NHS and community stakeholders to identify and prioritise innovations in Community First Responder (CFR) schemes.
We conducted a mixed-methods study, adopting a modified nominal group technique with participants from ambulance services, CFR schemes and community stakeholders. The 1-day consensus workshop consisted of four sessions: introduction of innovations derived from primary research; round-robin discussions to generate new ideas; discussion and ranking of innovations; feedback of ranking, re-ranking and concluding statements. Innovations were ranked on a 5-point Likert scale and descriptive statistics of median and interquartile range calculated. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically.
The innovations found were classified into two categories: process innovations and technological innovations. The process innovations included six types of innovations: roles, governance, training, policies and protocols, recruitment, and awareness. The technological innovations included three aspects: information and communication; transport; and health technology. The descriptive statistics revealed that innovations such as counselling and support for CFRs (median: 5 IQR 5,5), peer support [5 (4,5)], and enhanced communication with control room [5 (4,5)] were essential priorities. Contrastingly, innovations such as the provision of dual CFR crew [1.5 (1,3)], CFR responsibilities in patient transport to hospital [1 (1,2)], and CFR access to emergency blue light [1 (1,1.5)] were deemed non-priorities.
This article established consensus on innovations in the CFR schemes and their ranking for improving the provision of care delivered by CFRs in communities. The consensus-building process also informed policy- and decision-makers on the potential future change agenda for CFR schemes. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1757-7241 1757-7241 |
DOI: | 10.1186/s13049-024-01254-6 |