PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11501273

You did what? Clinical errors in EMS.

G Linder·P Murphy·M R Streger
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

It was late and you were exhausted. You ran a call that didn't go the way you would have liked. Errors occurred. What actions do you take when your partner is making mistakes? When do you step in? Do you step in? What if there's more to the errors than you realize? This article provides guidelines for EMS personnel to consider when dealing with a scenario that contains clinical errors. Although not an all-inclusive list, the examples and solutions may be beneficial to providers, including rookies and veterans.

Explore related subjects

CommunicationEmergency Medical TechniciansHeart FailureHumansInterpersonal RelationsMaleMedical ErrorsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G Linder, P Murphy, M R Streger. 2001. You did what? Clinical errors in EMS.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11501273/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Information-sharing among couples considering multifetal pregnancy reduction.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the information-sharing strategies of couples considering fetal reduction, and the impact of these strategies on the chances of encountering hostility in their social networks. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design of semistructured qualitative interviews, coded with respect to sharing strategies and level of personally directed hostility encountered. SETTING: Multiple Pregnancy Management Program, Comprehensive Genetics, New York, New York. PATIENT(S) AND INTERVENTION(S): Fifty women and their partners who were making a first visit to our maternal-fetal management facility, in order to consider the possibility of multifetal reduction as a pregnancy-management strategy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Development of information-sharing strategies, and the chances of encountering personally directed hostility regarding multifetal reduction associated with more and less selective strategies. RESULT(S): Four information-sharing strategies emerged from the analysis. Two of these strategies were relatively open (extended network, and both parents). Two other strategies were relatively selective (qualified family and friends, and defended relationship). The selective strategies were significantly less likely to encounter to encounter personally directed hostility (odds ratio, 3.88; 95% confidence intervals, 0.87-17.30). CONCLUSION(S): Selective sharing of information for couples considering multifetal prgnancy reduction is a potentially useful strategy for moderating potentially stressful relationships in their social networks. Clinics should find a way of integrating the discussion of selective sharing into their clinic's cultural repertoire of patient-support services.

Communication↗