• Paul-Georges Reuter, Anthony Chauvin, Nicolas Javaud, Frédéric Adnet, Frédéric Lapostolle, and Youri Yordanov.
• Urgences-Samu 93, Hôpital Avicenne, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris 13, Bobigny.
• Eur J Emerg Med. 2020 Feb 1; 27 (1): 21-26.

AbstractWe aimed to both quantitatively and qualitatively describe interventional research performed in emergency medical communication centres. We conducted a systematic review of articles published in MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. Studies evaluating therapeutic or organizational interventions directed by call centres in the context of emergencies were included. Studies of call centre management for general practice or nonhealthcare agencies were excluded. We assessed general characteristics and methodological information for each study. Quality was evaluated by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Among 3896 articles screened, we retained 59; 41 studies were randomized controlled trials (69%) and 18 (31%) were before-after studies; 41 (69%) took place in a single centre. For 33 (56%), 22 (37%) and 4 (7%) studies, the models used were simulation training, patient-based or experimental, respectively. The main topic was cardiac arrests (n = 45, 76%), with outcome measures of cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and dispatch assistance. Among randomized controlled trials, risk of bias was unclear or high for selective reporting for 37 (90%) studies, low for blinding of outcomes for 34 (83%) and low for incomplete outcomes for 31 (76%). Regarding before-after studies, quality was high in 9 (50%) studies. Few interventional studies have been performed in call centres. Studies mainly involved simulation and focussed on cardiac arrest. The quality of studies needs improvement to allow for a better recognition and understanding of emergency medical call control.

10 keywords...

hide…