Implementation of EMS Clinician Feedback Tool Encourages Patient Feedback Requests and Professional Development: A Mixed-Methods Study
Creators: name: Schneider, Katherine L.
name: Case, Zachary W.
name: Vakkalanka, J. Priyanka
name: Mohr, Nicholas M.
name: Ahmed, Azeemuddin
Publisher: name: Taylor & Francis
Year: 2025
Subjects: subject: Medicine
subject: Microbiology
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: Genetics
subject: Neuroscience
subject: Biotechnology
subject: Science Policy
subject: Information Systems not elsewhere classified
subject: Mental Health
subject: Hematology
subject: Infectious Diseases
subject: FOS: Health sciences

description: Emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians express dissatisfaction with the quality and quantity of clinical feedback received from hospitals, which is exacerbated by the absence of standardized feedback processes. A reported lack of regular feedback impedes their ability to learn and improve care. We evaluated a newly implemented feedback tool’s utilization and perceived impact on EMS clinicians and our health system. We employed a mixed-methods study design in a single academic medical center emergency department. Quantitative data collected focused on patients’ clinical characteristics and characteristics of utilizers of the feedback tool during implementation (September 2023–July 2024). Qualitative data involved semi-structured interviews with EMS clinicians who had diverse experiences with the feedback tool and years of EMS service Semi-structured interviews applied a phenomenological framework, and were videorecorded, transcribed, and independently coded to identify key themes surrounding the utilization and impact of the implemented tool. Among the 381 feedback requests, 139 (36.5%) pertained to patients aged ≥65 years, while 44 (11.5 %) included patients &lt;18 years; 343 (90%) had an Emergency Severity Index score of ≥2. Major complaints included traumatic (<i>n</i> = 165; 43.3%), neurologic (<i>n</i> = 90; 23.6%), and cardiac (<i>n</i> = 82; 21.5%). Emergency responder agencies included ground ambulance 227 (59.6%), air medical 90 (23.6%), public safety answering points 37 (9.7%), and fire service 27 (7.1%). The primary response method was e-mail 353 (93.7%). There was an average of 35 feedback requests per month (interquartile range: 27–59). EMS clinicians from multiple agencies with varying levels of knowledge of the feedback mechanism provided qualitative insights regarding the feedback tool, which covered several key areas: application and technological design, utilization, utility of feedback provided, barriers, comparisons to other systems, and areas for improvement.  The standardized feedback mechanism implemented for EMS clinicians showed engagement, especially among ground responders caring for high-acuity patients, highlighting its importance in patient care. The preference for email emphasizes the need for efficient communication channels. Clinicians found the system accessible and user-friendly. The feedback tool was perceived as crucial for professional development and personal growth, allowing clinicians to gain closure on patient cases and potentially improve future patient care practices.