Citation

Mitchell JB, Pozen MW, D'Agostino RB, Berezin MM. Med. Care. 1979; 17(8): 828-834.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1979, American Public Health Association, Publisher Lippincott Williams and Wilkins)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

470472

Abstract

Evaluations of emergency medical service (EMS) programs have been ambiguous, due in part, to problems of sample definition. Four different sampling strategies were studied: 1) all patients in cardiac arrest; 2) patients with a final diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI); 3) patients with an emergency room diagnosis of "rule out MI"; and 4) patients identified by the ambulance team as a possible MI. Using a regional data base of all ambulance runs, we created study samples based on each of these strategies and measured the error that may be introduced as a result of sample selection. Bias was measured along three parameters of EMS system performance: 1) observed incidence of MI in the ambulance system; 2) condition recognition--the ability of the ambulance team to correctly identify acute cardiac patients; and 3) emergency room and hospital mortality rates. The emergency room diagnosis strategy systematically excludes all false-positives, while samples based on the ambulance team's assessment omit all false-negatives. The final diagnosis strategy yields significant underestimates of cardiac mortality. Samples restricted to cardiac arrests result in biased estimates of both the incidence of MI and the number of deaths.

Language: en