BackgroundThis systematic review aimed to describe non-conveyance in ambulance care from patient-safety and ambulance professional perspectives. The review specifically focussed at describing (1) ambulance non-conveyance rates, (2) characteristics of non-conveyed patients, (3) follow-up care after non-conveyance, (4) existing guidelines or protocols, and (5) influencing factors during the non-conveyance decision making process.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and reference lists of included articles, in June 2016. We included all types of peer-reviewed designs on the five topics. Couples of two independent reviewers performed the selection process, the quality assessment, and data extraction.ResultsWe included 67 studies with low to moderate quality. Non-conveyance rates for general patient populations ranged from 3.7%–93.7%. Non-conveyed patients have a variety of initial complaints, common initial complaints are related to trauma and neurology. Furthermore, vulnerable patients groups as children and elderly are more represented in the non-conveyance population. Within 24 h–48 h after non-conveyance, 2.5%–6.1% of the patients have EMS representations, and 4.6–19.0% present themselves at the ED. Mortality rates vary from 0.2%–3.5% after 24 h, up to 0.3%–6.1% after 72 h. Criteria to guide non-conveyance decisions are vital signs, ingestion of drugs/alcohol, and level of consciousness. A limited amount of non-conveyance guidelines or protocols is available for general and specific patient populations. Factors influencing the non-conveyance decision are related to the professional (competencies, experience, intuition), the patient (health status, refusal, wishes and best interest), the healthcare system (access to general practitioner/other healthcare facilities/patient information), and supportive tools (online medical control, high risk card).ConclusionsNon-conveyance rates for general and specific patient populations vary. Patients in the non-conveyance population present themselves with a variety of initial complaints and conditions, common initial complaints or conditions are related to trauma and neurology. After non-conveyance, a proportion of patients re-enters the emergency healthcare system within 2 days. For ambulance professionals the non-conveyance decision-making process is complex and multifactorial. Competencies needed to perform non-conveyance are marginally described, and there is a limited amount of supportive tools is available for general and specific non-conveyance populations. This may compromise patient-safety.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13049-017-0409-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background: This review aims to describe the activities of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) working in ambulance care, and the effect of these activities on patient outcomes, process of care, provider outcomes, and costs. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE (EBSCO), EMBASE (OVID), Web of Science, the Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Review), CINAHL Plus, and the reference lists of the included articles were systematically searched in November 2019. All types of peer-reviewed designs on the three topics were included. Pairs of independent reviewers performed the selection process, the quality assessment, and the data extraction. Results: Four studies of moderate to poor quality were included. Activities in medical, communication and collaboration skills were found. The effects of these activities were found in process of care and resource use outcomes, focusing on non-conveyance rates, referral and consultation, on-scene time, or follow-up contact Conclusions: This review shows that there is limited evidence on activities of NPs and PAs in ambulance care. Results show that NPs and PAs in ambulance care perform activities that can be categorized into the Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists (CanMED) roles of Medical Expert, Communicator, and Collaborator. The effects of NPs and PAs are minimally reported in relation to process of care and resource use, focusing on non-conveyance rates, referral and consultation, on-scene time, or follow-up contact. No evidence on patient outcomes of the substitution of NPs and PAs in ambulance care exists. PROSPERO registration: CRD42017067505 (07/07/2017)

Targeted therapy is lagging behind in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). To guide the development of new treatment strategies, we provide an overview of the prognostic biomarkers in resectable EAC treated with curative intent. The Medline, Cochrane and EMBASE databases were systematically searched, focusing on overall survival (OS). The quality of the studies was assessed using a scoring system ranging from 0–7 points based on modified REMARK criteria. To evaluate all identified prognostic biomarkers, the hallmarks of cancer were adapted to fit all biomarkers based on their biological function in EAC, resulting in the features angiogenesis, cell adhesion and extra-cellular matrix remodeling, cell cycle, immune, invasion and metastasis, proliferation, and self-renewal. Pooled hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived by random effects meta-analyses performed on each hallmarks of cancer feature. Of the 3298 unique articles identified, 84 were included, with a mean quality of 5.9 points (range 3.5–7). The hallmarks of cancer feature ‘immune’ was most significantly associated with worse OS (HR 1.88, (95%CI 1.20–2.93)). Of the 82 unique prognostic biomarkers identified, meta-analyses showed prominent biomarkers, including COX-2, PAK-1, p14ARF, PD-L1, MET, LC3B, IGFBP7 and LGR5, associated to each hallmark of cancer.