The Use of Medical Services for Low-Acuity Emergency Cases in Germany: Protocol for a Multicenter Observational Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increasing number of requests for help for acutely ill patients and their management is a major problem in the health systems of many countries, but especially in Germany. Rescue coordination centers and ambulances in Germany are increasingly overloaded. As a result, rides as a part of rescue operations have been increasing in length for years, yet a relevant proportion of these operations represent low-acuity calls (LACs). The basic objective of this pilot study is the quantitative analysis of the potential misuse of requests to the rescue control center. Indications for alternative treatment options and how to handle these treatment options in nonacute, non-life-threatening health conditions, such as minor injuries or minor infectious diseases, will be assessed. The identification of these LACs is vital in order to prevent health care resources in emergency medical care becoming inadequate. OBJECTIVE: The overarching goal of this study is to determine the percentage of unnecessary rescue missions on site and subsequently to obtain an impression of the paramedics' assessment of alternative treatment options or alternative methods of rescue transportation. METHODS: This will be an exploratory, noninterventional, cross-sectional study with a quantitative approach. The study is multicentric, with 21 ambulances in 12 different locations. The data for this study were collected via a questionnaire, newly developed for this study, for rescue personnel. Additionally, secondary data from the responsible control center will be linked and processed in an initial descriptive analysis. This descriptive analysis will form the basis for a subsequent variance analysis. RESULTS: Data collection started as projected on September 18, 2023, and was ongoing until end of November 2023. We expect the documentation of several thousand rescue operations. We expect the following study results: (1) many unnecessary rescue operations, (2) immediate on-site assessment of correct care and treatment, and (3) patients' reasons for calling a rescue coordination center. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first observational study in which acute rescue operations are recorded on site. The focus of this study is on the trained paramedics' assessment of whether rescue operations are necessary or not. Additionally, alternative treatments, such as out-of-hours care service or primary care service, are shown for each individual case. The study also intends to cover the question of which factors are relevant and statistically significantly connected to the misuse of ambulances. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Register for Clinical Studies (Deutsches Register für Klinische Studien) DRKS00032510; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00032510. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54002.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".