An audit of 4679 consecutive emergencies for an emergency care practitioner

01 January 2014
Volume 6 · Issue 1

Abstract

An audit using a sample of 4679 consecutive emergency patients seen by a single emergency care practitioner working for a statutory ambulance service in England between November 2007 and November 2013. The results show that the most common type of call attended are traumatic injuries followed by medical problems. The data shows that 53% of patients attended were discharged at scene, with another 8.3% referred to specialist pathways and just 29.3% sent to the majors side of the emergency department. Additionally, it is shown that referrals are made appropriately in the vast majority of cases with just 2.4% of attempted referrals being rejected as inappropriate. Whilst further work is needed to quantify how these figures compare to a more traditional paramedic role, it is suggested that the introduction of a few specific skills such as skin glue and the use of antibiotics for chest infections to general paramedic practice could dramatically reduce unnecessary hospital admissions.

Reporting in July 2013, the House of Commons Health Committee (HoCHC) investigated the structure of emergency and urgent care services in England and recognised that ‘in order to enhance the overall system of emergency care…ambulance services should be regarded as a care provider and not a service that simply readies patients for journeys to hospital’ (HoCHC, 2013).

Essentially, this means that rather than simply conveying patients to the local emergency department (ED), paramedics should be looking to either treat in the community or directly refer patients onto specialist pathways. As the committee stated, ‘treating at scene and reducing conveyance rates would contribute to alleviating some of the pressures in emergency departments and offer a better service to patients’ (HoCHC, 2013).

In order to do this it is recommended that there needs to be a workforce of skilled paramedics who can ‘treat more patients at scene, reduce conveyance rates to emergency departments and make difficult judgements about when to bypass the nearest A&E in favour of specialist units’ (HoCHC, 2013). This body of specialist paramedics has in fact been in development for several years, following reports such as Right Skill, Right Time, Right Place published by the NHS Modernisation Agency (NHS MA) in 2004.

This report defined the roles and responsibilities of these specialist paramedics, and stated that their job title should be emergency care practitioner (ECP). It envisaged ECPs working across both emergency and urgent care settings and predicted that there would be benefits in both areas. In emergency care there would be ‘more timely care for patients with fewer transfers and unnecessary handoffs, reduced use of ambulance and reduced attendance at A&E’ (NHS MA, 2004). The report noted that in early studies ‘ECPs are only transporting 45% of patients to A&E, compared to a traditional ambulance response, which transports 70–77% of patients to A&E’ (NHS MA, 2004), and observed that a further 10% of patients were referred directly onto the most appropriate care pathways. In urgent care it was envisioned that ECPs would work alongside GP led out-of-hours (OOH) services visiting patients in their homes and working out of drop-in centres. The report noted that ‘typical response times for home visits are 1 hour 10 minutes for ECPs compared with 3 hours 7 minutes for GPs’ (NHS MA, 2004).

There is, however, a lack of empirical research into the work of the ambulance service (Griffiths and Mooney, 2012). The House of Commons Health Committee stated that ‘evidence regarding the profile of patients presenting at A&E is contradictory and there is a pressing need for clearer information which can detail where cases present across the system and the case mix of such presentations’ (HoCHC, 2013). It also recommended that ‘NHS England undertakes research to establish the precise relationship between more highly-skilled ambulance crews and reduced conveyance rates’ (HoCHC, 2013).

The following audit is an attempt to help address this lack of evidence about how cases present across the system and how effective more highly-skilled ambulance practitioners (such as ECPs) can be in reducing conveyance rates.

The audit

The data presented here is an audit of 4 679 consecutive emergency calls attended by a single ECP between November 2007 and November 2013. The data was collected in a large urban environment, a town in southern England, with a population of approximately 209 000, but also includes a large rural area surrounding the town. Anecdotally, it is well understood that there are huge variations in the way that ECP resources are used in different ambulance Trusts, and even within the same ambulance Trust. The data presented here was collected in a dispatch system that utilises ECP cars by mobilising them as a standard rapid response vehicle (RRV), responding to any and all 999 calls until such time as there is ECP work to do. This work may come from referrals from other ambulance crews, from the OOH provider, from the NHS 111 service (or formerly NHS Direct), or from jobs that the ECP has attended as the primary response, but which require ECP-level interventions. The local dispatch also employ a triage system that identifies calls suitable for ECP attendance at the call-taking stage and prioritises an ECP response to such jobs even if it is not the nearest resource.

Some points to note about the audit:

  • Each event recorded is a patient contact. No record is made of either ‘stand-downs’ (jobs which were never reached) or jobs where there was no patient contact (e.g. a house fire with no people injured). The vast majority of jobs attended only have one patient; however, some jobs do have multiple patients, primarily RTCs, and for these each patient is recorded separately.
  • Each event is allocated to one of 163 presentation categories. These categories reflect the nature of the actual problem encountered as opposed to how the call was triaged by the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC). One category is classified as ‘Others’ and this relates to incidents that do not fit in anywhere else
  • This version of the audit contains only jobs encountered while working on an ECP car. Jobs encountered whilst working on a double crewed ambulance (DCA) are excluded as the audit is intended to look specifically at the nature of ECP work.
  • Results, data and findings

    Demographics

    The audit covers 853 shifts (mostly 12 hours each but a few 10-hour shifts) and shows an average of 5.5 jobs per shift.

    Of the 4 679 patients, 48.9% were male and 51.1% were female, which compares closely with the 2011 census data for the town where the data was collected, which reported a 50.02% male and 49.98% female population. The slight variation may be explained by the female population having a marginally longer life expectancy by 4.2 years (Office for National Statistics, 2011).

    There is a marked break from the general population data though with age (See Table 1).


    Age General population (Census data: OfNS, 2011) Patient population (Audit data)
    <5 years 6.7% 4.6%
    5–16 years 13.1% 4.4%
    16–65 years 66.4% 47.2%
    >65 years 13.8% 43.8%

    Clearly those over 65 years are over-represented, hardly a surprise as this is the patient group that would be expected to have the most health problems. By removing them from the sample study though the data can be broken down for those under 65 years (See Table 2).


    Age General population (Census data: OfNS, 2011) Patient population (Audit data)
    <5 years 7.8% 8.2%
    5–16 years 15.1% 7.8%
    16–65 years 77.1% 84.0%

    So even after removing the confounding factor of those over 65 years, there is still a marked under-representation among the 5–16-year-old age demographic. Going one step further and looking at the data just for those under 16 years shows that this under-representation of the 5–16-year-old age group is still evident (See Table 3).


    Age General population (Census data: OfNS, 2011) Patient population (Audit data)
    <5 years 34.0% 51.2%
    5–16 years 66.0% 48.8%

    Although those under 5 years only comprise 34% of the children in the general population, they account for over 51% of the children encountered by the ambulance service. A similar trend was noted in the National Service Framework for Children, which stated that ‘in a typical year, a pre-school child will see their general practitioner about six times, while a child of school age will go two or three times’ (Department of Health, 2003).

    Nature of presentations

    With 163 different categories of presentation identified the data becomes quite ‘diluted’. The ten most common single presentation categories can be seen in Table 4.


    Most common presentations Percentage of total
    Fall (with minor head injury) 3.5% (n=164)
    Chest pain (non-specific) 3.4% (n=158)
    Collapse (other) 2.9 (n=136)
    Psychiatric 2.9% (n=135)
    Chest infection 2.8% (n=130)
    Drunk 2.7% (n=128)
    Fall (non-injury) 2.7% (n=127)
    Road traffic collision (treat at scene) 2.6% (n=122)
    Urinary tract infection 2.5% (n=117)
    Deliberate self-poisoning 2.4% (n=113)

    In order to get more useful data on the nature of presentations the data is ‘reconstructed’ into larger categories (See Table 5) (there is some overlap between these reconstructed categories, e.g. the most common single presentation, ‘Fall (with minor head injury)’, appears in both ‘Minor Trauma’ and ‘Falls’).


    Nature of presentation Percentage of total
    Minor trauma 11.2% (n=524)
    Falls 8.0% (n=376)
    Trauma/orthopaedic 8.0% (n=375)
    Respiratory/shortness of breath 7.7% (n=361)
    Cardiac/chest pain 7.4% (n=344)
    Gastro-intestinal/abdominal pain 7.0% (n=326)
    Collapses 6.7% (n=313)
    Psychiatric 5.9% (n=276)
    Neurology 5.8% (n=273)
    Road traffic collisions 4.1% (n=194)
    Genito-urinary 4.0% (n=188)
    Drink/drugs 3.5% (n=162)
    Assaults 2.9% (n=136)
    Endocrine 1.7% (n=78)
    Cardiac arrests 1.2% (n=55)

    Looked at in this way the nature of ambulance work can be seen as being slightly different from the image the general public has formed from TV shows and the media. Research carried out by London Ambulance Service in 2006 found that the public perceive the role of the ambulance service as primarily being to respond to major incidents and to accidents, with only 13% seeing ‘diagnosing and treating illness’ as being part of the ambulance service's role (London Ambulance Service, 2006). This audit would suggest that the majority of ambulance work is dealing with acute and chronic illness, minor injuries and minor illness, making the ambulance service more the emergency arm of the medical services as opposed to the medical arm of the emergency services.

    Minor Trauma

    Minor trauma is the most common call type identified by the audit. Minor trauma is defined here as that which can be usually managed at scene, although notable exceptions would be deliberate self-harm, where there is also a psychiatric element that needs managing, and minor crush injuries, which typically involve a finger shut in a car door, which will require an x-ray to manage.


    Presenting complaint n %
    Fall (with minor head injury) 164 3.5
    Fall (minor injury, not head) 85 1.8
    Wound (minor, not head) 75 1.6
    Head injury (wound, minor) 68 1.5
    Assault (treat at scene) 57 1.2
    Deliberate self-harm 28 0.6
    Sports injury 22 0.5
    Head injury (closed, minor) 21 0.4
    Crush injury (minor) 4 0.1

    Much of this minor trauma involves wounds that require management. The various treatment options open to the ECP for wound management include skin glue, steri-strips and sutures.


    Treatment n %
    Skin glue 139 3.0
    Sutures 94 2.0
    Steri-strips 82 1.8

    Falls

    Falls are a very common reason for 999 calls, especially from the elderly. Of the falls recorded in the audit the majority were falls with minor head injuries, but also common were non-injury falls and falls with a minor injury other than a head injury. The use of advanced wound care (for the ambulance service at least) such as skin glue, steri-strips, and suturing, along with referral pathways to community based crisis teams (1.2%, n=57) have made it possible to treat the vast majority of these patients at home and avoid the previous situation where an elderly person would be taken to hospital in the middle of the night just to have a five minute wound care procedure.


    Presenting complaint n %
    Fall with minor head injury 164 3.5
    Fall (non-injury) 127 2.7
    Fall with minor injury (not head) 85 1.8

    Trauma/orthopaedic

    This section is the traumatic injuries that usually require treatment in hospital, e.g. suspected fractures and wounds which are too complex to be managed in the community.


    Presenting complaint n %
    Fracture (hip/pelvis/NOF) 75 1.6
    Wound (requires hospital) 59 1.3
    Fracture (upper limb) 49 1.0
    Head injury (closed, serious) 37 0.8
    Fracture (lower limb) 33 0.7
    Fall from height 25 0.5
    Spinal injury (suspected) 23 0.5
    RTC (spinal injury suspected) 17 0.4
    Head injury (wound, serious) 14 0.3
    Equestrian injury (pelvis/back) 10 0.2
    Dislocated shoulder 9 0.2
    Chest trauma 7 0.1
    Fracture (facial) 4 0.1
    Dislocated knee 4 0.1
    Abdominal trauma 2 <0.1
    Equestrian injury (head) 2 <0.1
    Crush injury (serious) 2 <0.1
    Equestrian injury (crush) 2 <0.1
    RTC (entrapment) 1 <0.1

    Respiratory/shortness of breath

    The fourth largest single category is patients presenting with respiratory problems or shortness of breath (SOB). The most common presentation within this group is chest infections, but also common is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), although this is often a primary co-morbidity with chest infection presentations. Less common and perhaps surprisingly uncommon is asthma, especially in children. Asthma is regarded as the most common chronic illness in childhood (Boyd et al, 2009), yet only 1.7% of children encountered (n=422) presented with asthma (n=7).

    Respiratory problems are an area where ECPs can make a big difference. There are many treatment options open to the ECP, especially when managing infective complications such as chest infections. In the audit it can be seen that Amoxicillin, our primary antibiotic to use for chest infections, had been dispensed 39 times, with Augmentin and Clarithromycin (other potential treatment options) being dispensed a total of 35 times. Also in this category is croup, a condition which can usually be treated at home with the administration of a single dose of steroids; for a total of 23 presentations there are 24 uses of Prednisolone (although some of these would have been for COPD patients).


    Presenting complaint n %
    Chest infection 130 2.8
    COPD 67 1.4
    SOB (non-specific) 52 1.1
    PE (suspected) 31 0.7
    Asthma (adult) 25 0.5
    LVF 23 0.5
    Croup 23 0.5
    Asthma (child) 7 0.1
    Pneumothorax 3 0.1

    Medication n %
    Oxygen 204 4.4
    Salbutamol (Neb) 64 1.4
    Amoxicillin (Oral) 39 0.8
    Augmentin (Oral) 27 0.6
    Prednislone (Oral) 24 0.5
    Furosemide (IV) 10 0.2
    Ipatropium bromide (Neb) 10 0.2
    Claithromycin (Oral) 8 0.2

    Cardiac/chest pain

    The fifth most common type of call is to chest pain. The largest single presentation in this group is non-specific pain, this is typically a patient aged over 40 years presenting with vaguely cardiac sounding pain for which no cause can be identified or has been previously diagnosed. The occurrence of actual acute myocardial infarctions is very rare, at just 6.1% of chest pain calls (or 0.4% of the total calls).


    Presenting complaint n %
    Chest pain (non-specific) 158 3.4
    Chest pain (ACS) 85 1.8
    Fast AF 33 0.7
    Chest pain (Ml) 21 0.4
    Palpitations 20 0.4
    SVT 13 0.3
    Bradycardia 6 0.1
    VT 3 0.1
    AF 3 0.1
    Pericarditis 2 <0.1

    Gastro-intestinal (GI)/abdominal pain

    The most common presentation for abdominal pain is pain for which a specific cause cannot be identified. One interesting statistic in these figures is the relative rarity of appendicitis, often described as being one of the ‘most common surgical emergencies’ (Simon et al, 2010)—it only appears 13 times (4% of abdominal pain calls). This may in part reflect the difficulty in diagnosing the condition, meaning that many cases were possibly classified as non-specific pain.


    Presenting complaint n %
    Adominal pain (non-specific) 95 2.0
    D&V 62 1.3
    Haematemesis 30 0.6
    Gallstones 27 0.6
    PR bleed 23 0.5
    Vomiting (adult) 21 0.4
    IBS 19 0.4
    Appendicitis 13 0.3
    Constipation 10 0.2
    Vomiting (child/baby) 9 0.2
    Pancreatitis 8 0.2
    Dysphagia 7 0.1
    Jaundice 2 <0.1

    Collapses

    Collapses are here differentiated where a clear aetiology can be identified (such as for simple faints and vaso-vagal collapses), but most commonly there is no clear cause.


    Presenting complaint n %
    Collapse (other) 136 2.9
    Collapse (faint) 63 1.3
    Collapse (cardiac arrest) 41 0.9
    DOA (dead on arrival) 35 0.7
    Collapse (vaso-vagal) 26 0.6
    Collapse (child) 12 0.3

    Psychiatric

    The management of psychiatric patients often falls to the ambulance service and EDs. This partly reflects the difficulties in accessing community psychiatric services (with only 15 successful referrals recorded in the audit).


    Presenting complaint n %
    Psychiatric 135 2.9
    Deliberate self-poisoning 113 2.4
    Deliberate self-harm 28 0.6

    Neurology

    The most common neurological presentations are seizures and cerebro-vascular accidents (CVAs). The management of these conditions is well within the normal scope of paramedic practice.


    Presenting complaint n %
    Seizures (adult) 103 2.2
    CVA 79 1.7
    Head injury (closed, serious) 37 0.8
    Headache (serious) 20 0.4
    Seizures (child) 19 0.4
    TIA 14 0.3

    Road traffic collisions (RTC)

    Road traffic collisions make up a small but significant amount of the work of the ambulance service—4.1% of the total patients seen. The majority of these incidents (55%) occur in urban areas, with 33.9% in rural areas and just 11.1% on motorways.


    Presenting complaint n %
    RTC (treat at scene) 122 2.6
    RTC (other injuries) 52 1.1
    RTC (spinal injury suspected) 17 0.4
    RTC (fatal) 2 <0.1
    RTC (entrapment) 1 <0.1

    RTCs these days tend to be less serious than they were in the past, with reported accidents and injuries having dropped significantly since the mid 1990s (Department for Transport, 2011). As a result, of the 194 patients encountered in RTCs, 63% were treated at scene and only 36% needed to go to hospital. Fatal RTCs are exceptionally rare, with only two instances recorded in the audit.

    Genito-urinary (GU)

    By far the most common GU presentation is urinary tract infections. This is a condition where the ECP can make a real difference by initiating treatment immediately in the community and thus avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions. The use of antibiotics for UTIs (Trimethoprim and Nitrofurantoin) is recorded 62 times, which is only just over half the number of presentations. The reason for this is that often ECPs are called to patients who are feeling unwell because of a UTI which is already being medicated, and sometimes these patients are too frail to be treated at home and so are admitted to hospital where treatment is initiated.


    Presenting complaint n %
    Urinary tract infection 117 2.5
    Urinary problem (e.g. catheter) 29 0.6
    Gynaecological problem 20 0.4
    Renal colic 17 0.4
    Testicular pain 4 0.1
    Sexually transmitted disease 1 <0.1

    Drink/drugs

    Commonly seen as being what paramedics spend most of their time dealing with, in fact patients presenting as drunk as their primary problem only account for 2.7% of presentations. However, the presence of alcohol as a significant factor across all jobs is recorded at 9.5% (n=446), which is in line with other studies (Martin et al, 2012).


    Presenting complaint n %
    Drunk 128 2.7
    Drug overdose (heroin) 17 0.4
    Drug overdose (other) 17 0.4

    Assaults

    Assaults are fairly evenly split between those that can be treated at scene and those that require the victim to go to hospital (usually because they are drunk and have a head injury).


    Presenting complaint n %
    Assault (requires hospital) 62 1.3
    Assault (treat on scene) 57 1.2
    Assault (no treatment) 10 0.2
    Rape 4 0.1
    Stabbing 3 0.1

    Endocrine

    The most common endocrine disorder encountered in emergency care is diabetes and is typically managed in the community.


    Presenting complaint n %
    Diabetic (hypo) 47 1.0
    Diabetic (other) 14 0.3
    Diabetic (DKA) 13 0.3
    Thyroid problem 3 0.1
    Addison's disease 1 <0.1

    Cardiac arrest

    The public perception is perhaps that we deal with cardiac arrests day in day out but the reality is that they are far less common. There were a total of 55 (1.2%) cardiac arrests identified in the audit, cardiac arrest being here specifically what are termed ‘working’ arrests, i.e. where BLS/ALS is undertaken for at least some period of time. The demographics and aetiologies of the arrests encountered break down as follows:


    Cardiac arrest patient age n %
    0–1 year 1 1.8
    1–16 years 0 0.0
    16–65 years 17 30.9
    >65 years 37 67.3

    Reason for cardiac arrest n %
    Collapse/medical 48 87.3
    Drug overdose 2 3.6
    Trauma 2 3.6
    Hanging 2 3.6
    Fire 1 1.8

    Cardiac arrest presenting rhythm n %
    VF/VT 19 34.5
    PEA 23 41.8
    Asystole 13 23.6

    Cardiac arrest outcome n %
    No ROSC (ROLE at scene) 19 34.5
    ROSC 18 32.7
    No ROSC (transport to ED) 18 32.7

    Others

    There are a number of other patient presentations that do not fit into any of the above categories but are common enough to be worth a mention.

    Back pain was seen 96 times (2.1%), this is typically treated at scene with the use of oral analgesics such as Codeine (n=93), Diclofenac (n=39), Paracetamol (n=63, which is lower than some other analgesics as patients often have their own, the audit recording drugs dispensed), Diazepam (n=45), and Tramadol (n=28).

    Viral illness was seen 85 times (1.8%) and again is typically treated at scene with advice. Viral illness would here be defined as a mild illness with the presence of an infection (typically fever, coryza) with no treatable focus identified (i.e. chest infection, UTI etc.).

    Panic attacks were encountered 83 times (1.8%) and again are usually treated at scene. Some are classical ‘hyperventilation syndrome’, a recognised condition requiring treatment, the rest are usually preceded by the consumption of alcohol and the belief that one's drink has been ‘spiked’.

    Outcomes

    The audit shows that 82.9% (n=3877) of patients are responded to as a ‘first response’, that is the patient has not first been assessed by another healthcare professional (HCP). Of the 17.1% (n=802) who were referred to the ECP the breakdown of referral sources is given below:


    Referral source %
    Referral from DCA/RRV (at scene with patient) 10.5% (n=492)
    Referral from OOH/NHSD/NHS 111 3.6% (n=169)
    Referral from clinical desk 2.9% (n=135)
    ECP requested follow-up visit 0.1% (n=6)

    In the initial years of the local ECP service, it was funded by the Primary Care Trust and was seen as an extension of the OOH service. In those years 6.2% of calls were referrals from them (or NHS Direct), but when this funding arrangement ended this figure dropped to just 1.4%, which was essentially the rate of referrals from NHS Direct. Since the setting up of the NHS 111 system in early 2013, however the, number of referrals coming from these sources (primarily the new NHS 111 service) has risen to 5.5%, suggesting that the NHS 111 service is referring nearly four times as many calls to the ambulance service than the NHS Direct service did.

    The clinical desk was only set up during 2010 so the figures for this are slightly skewed. By taking just the full years it has been up and running into account, its referrals account for 5.2% of jobs (as opposed to the 2.9% given in the audit).

    Within the audit patient outcomes are measured. These show that working as an ECP the majority of patients are treated and discharged at scene. A small number of jobs are recorded as either the GP or another healthcare professional sending the patient to hospital. Typically these calls have been triaged as red thus requiring an eight minute response, and so a car has been sent to meet this target.


    Outcome %
    Treat at scene 53% (n=2481)
    Send to ED majors 29.3% (n=1369)
    Referred to specialist pathway by ECP 8.3% (n=387)
    Sent to MIU/WIC 6.9% (n=321)
    Sent to hospital by GP/HCP 2.6% (n=121)

    The breakdown of referrals shows that the majority are made to the medics. This partly reflects a local drive to encourage medical referrals from the ambulance service directly to the Acute Admissions Unit (AAU), which has seen paramedics also being encouraged to phone in referrals.


    Referral pathway %
    Medical referral by ECP 4.9% (n=231)
    Surgical referral by ECP 1.6% (n=74)
    Paediatric referral by ECP 0.8% (n=37)
    Admit to delivery suite/EPU 0.7% (n=32)
    Other referral (e.g. ENT, gynae, ortho etc.) 0.3% (n=13)

    Elsewhere in the audit a measure is made of referrals which are declined, either for clinical or non-clinical reasons. If these failed referrals are combined back with the successful referrals then they show a very low rate of fails.


    Reason for failed referral % (of attempted referrals)
    Declined for clinical reason 2.4% (n=10)
    Declined for non-clinical reason 4.1% (n=17)

    Referrals declined for clinical reasons are where a referral has been attempted but was deemed by the doctor to not be appropriate. At a rate of just 2.4% of all attempted referrals (with a corresponding accepted referral rate of 93.5%), it is suggested that ECPs are thus shown to be capable of making appropriate referrals. Referrals declined for non-clinical reasons are typically because either the in-hospital team could not be reached or once reached were not aware of their own referral pathways, the typical comment being ‘we don't take referrals from ambulance drivers.’

    Conclusions

    The work of an ECP in a statutory ambulance service is not exactly how the media and the general public perceive it. The majority of our time is spent managing everyday medical and surgical problems, falls, minor injuries and minor illnesses. The importance of recognising this fact is brought into focus when considering the recent debate about whether the ambulance service should be rolled into the fire service. This audit would suggest that the ambulance service is a ‘health service’ more than a ‘rescue service’.

    This audit also shows an ECP service can work at even greater efficiency than was proposed in the founding years, when it was suggested that ‘only’ 45% of patients would be transported to ED (NHS Modernisation Agency, 2004). The audit clearly demonstrates the benefits to the ambulance service, the health service generally, and patients in particular, of utilising advanced paramedics to deliver appropriate care to patients at the point of call.

    There are a small number of clinical interventions that have a large impact on the ability to treat at scene. The ability to use antibiotics to treat chest and urinary tract infections is relatively straightforward, as is the use of wound closure techniques such as skin glue and suturing. This audit would suggest that were those skills made available to paramedics in general, then there would be a positive impact for the ambulance service as a whole, as currently there are many gaps in ECP cover, meaning that these patients cannot always be referred for home treatment.

    This audit is limited by being an audit of the work of a single individual, but it is hoped that the scale of the audit goes some way to balancing this limitation out. Also limiting is the lack of empirical data showing, for example, outcomes for traditional paramedics working on DCAs or RRVs to use for comparison. To this end, data is currently being collated by a colleague who is a paramedic who works primarily on DCAs and is using the same audit tool to produce a comparable set of data. Once a sufficiently large set of data has been gathered the author proposes to write a further paper comparing and contrasting the work of an ECP with that of a more traditional paramedic role.