Skip to content

What works to improve patient care related to ambulance handovers at emergency departments?

What works to improve SafeTy, pAtient experience, outcomes and costs related to deLayed ambulance handovers at Emergency Departments? A whole systems approach

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ISRCTN
Registry ID
ISRCTN13306346
Enrollment
1056000
Registered
2025-04-30
Start date
2025-08-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-09-08

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Trauma and emergency care Other

Interventions

In this study, we will use a mix of methods to answer our questions. We will carry out an initial mapping exercise to identify relevant stakeholders and run online workshops to promote engagement with
paramedic care within the ED
or use of additional space. We will analyse existing data to identify sites that rarely queue ambulances and sites that do this more frequently. We will present findings at a stakeholder event with pa
999 ambulance attendance
conveyance rates to ED
hospital admissions
and waiting times. We will investigate effects within vulnerable subgroups of the population, including the very elderly, people in ethnic minorities and people who make high use of emergency care. We

Sponsors

Swansea University
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Comparison of routinely available outcomes dataset: 1. Resident within the catchment area of a participating site hospital 2. 999 call made by or for patient OR patient attended ED in 12-month period (e.g. 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025) Patient survey: 1. Included in routine outcomes dataset 2. Adults (18 years of age or older) 3. Emergency care episode occurred within the most recent 1-2 months of the patient recruitment period (e.g. February – March 2025) Patient interviews: 1. Included in patient survey 2. Consent to interview approach (via patient questionnaire) Case note review: 1. Included in routinely available outcomes dataset Staff interviews and focus groups: 1. Working knowledge of the study site (ambulance service/hospital) 2. Adults (18 years of age or older)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Comparison of routinely available outcomes: 1. Local, national or study-specific data opt-out Patient survey: 1. Deceased 2. Deemed unsuitable by the clinical team Patient interviews: 1. None Case note review: 1. Local, study or national data opt-out Staff interviews and focus groups: 1. None

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Mortality at 30 days (using routine data)

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
1. 999 ambulance attendance (measured using routine data) at 6 months follow-up post emergency care incident 2. Conveyance rates to ED (measured using routine data) at 6 months follow-up post emergency care incident 3. Hospital admissions (measured using routine data) at 6 months follow-up post emergency care incident 4. Waiting times (measured using routine data) at 6 months follow-up post emergency care incident 5. Quality of life measured using the SF12 quality of life instrument (part of patient questionnaire) at 1-4 months post emergency care incident 6. Satisfaction with care measured using a modified quality of care monitor tool (part of patient questionnaire) at 1-4 months post emergency care incident 7. Safety concerns (part of patient questionnaire) at 1-4 months post emergency care incident, and through independent case note review 8. Stakeholder views collected through qualitative methods at 6 months follow-up post emergency care incident 9. Costs calculated through routine data and patient questionnaires at 1-4 months post emergency care incident

Countries

England, United Kingdom

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026