Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine (Sep 2024)

Consensus on innovations and future directions of community first responder schemes in United Kingdom: a national nominal group technique study

  • Gupteswar Patel,
  • Vanessa Botan,
  • Viet-Hai Phung,
  • Ian Trueman,
  • Mehrshad Parvin Hosseini,
  • Murray D. Smith,
  • Roderick Ørner,
  • Julie Pattinson,
  • Zahid Asghar,
  • Elise Rowan,
  • Robert Spaight,
  • Craig Mortimer,
  • Amanda Brewster,
  • Pauline Mountain,
  • Joshua Miller,
  • Martina Brown,
  • Aloysius Niroshan Siriwardena

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-024-01254-6
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 32, no. 1
pp. 1 – 16

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Aim We aimed to achieve consensus among NHS and community stakeholders to identify and prioritise innovations in Community First Responder (CFR) schemes. Methods We conducted a mixed-methods study, adopting a modified nominal group technique with participants from ambulance services, CFR schemes and community stakeholders. The 1-day consensus workshop consisted of four sessions: introduction of innovations derived from primary research; round-robin discussions to generate new ideas; discussion and ranking of innovations; feedback of ranking, re-ranking and concluding statements. Innovations were ranked on a 5-point Likert scale and descriptive statistics of median and interquartile range calculated. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Results The innovations found were classified into two categories: process innovations and technological innovations. The process innovations included six types of innovations: roles, governance, training, policies and protocols, recruitment, and awareness. The technological innovations included three aspects: information and communication; transport; and health technology. The descriptive statistics revealed that innovations such as counselling and support for CFRs (median: 5 IQR 5,5), peer support [5 (4,5)], and enhanced communication with control room [5 (4,5)] were essential priorities. Contrastingly, innovations such as the provision of dual CFR crew [1.5 (1,3)], CFR responsibilities in patient transport to hospital [1 (1,2)], and CFR access to emergency blue light [1 (1,1.5)] were deemed non-priorities. Conclusions This article established consensus on innovations in the CFR schemes and their ranking for improving the provision of care delivered by CFRs in communities. The consensus-building process also informed policy- and decision-makers on the potential future change agenda for CFR schemes.

Keywords