Paramedic knowledge of infectious disease aetiology and transmission in an Australian Emergency Medical System

Introduction: Paramedics and other emergency health workers are exposed to infectious disease particularly when undertaking exposure-prone procedures as a component of their everyday practice. This study examined paramedic knowledge of infectious disease aetiology and transmission in the pre-hospital care environment.--------- Methods: A mail survey of paramedics from an Australian ambulance service (n=2274) was conducted.--------- Results: With a response rate of 55.3% (1258/2274), the study demonstrated that paramedic knowledge of infectious disease aetiology and modes of transmission was poor. Of the 25 infectious diseases included in the survey, only three aetiological agents were correctly identified by at least 80% of respondents. The most accurate responses for aetiology of individual infectious diseases were for HIV/AIDS (91.4%), influenza (87.4%), and hepatitis B (85.7%). Poorest results were observed for pertussis, infectious mononucleosis, leprosy, dengue fever, Japanese B encephalitis and vancomycin resistant enterococcus (VRE), all with less than half the sample providing a correct response. Modes of transmission of significant infectious diseases were also assessed. Most accurate responses were found for HIV/AIDS (85.8%), salmonella (81.9%) and influenza (80.1%). Poorest results were observed for infectious mononucleosis, diphtheria, shigella, Japanese B encephalitis, vancomycin resistant enterococcus, meningococcal meningitis, rubella and infectious mononucleosis, with less than a third of the sample providing a correct response.--------- Conclusions: Results suggest that knowledge of aetiology and transmission of infectious disease is generally poor amongst paramedics. A comprehensive in-service education infection control programs for paramedics with emphasis on infectious disease aetiology and transmission is recommended.

Sharing of clinical data in a maternity setting: How do paper hand-held records and electronic health records compare for completeness?

Background Historically, the paper hand-held record (PHR) has been used for sharing information between hospital clinicians, general practitioners and pregnant women in a maternity shared-care environment. Recently in alignment with a National e-health agenda, an electronic health record (EHR) was introduced at an Australian tertiary maternity service to replace the PHR for collection and transfer of data. The aim of this study was to examine and compare the completeness of clinical data collected in a PHR and an EHR. Methods We undertook a comparative cohort design study to determine differences in completeness between data collected from maternity records in two phases. Phase 1 data were collected from the PHR and Phase 2 data from the EHR. Records were compared for completeness of best practice variables collected The primary outcome was the presence of best practice variables and the secondary outcomes were the differences in individual variables between the records. Results Ninety-four percent of paper medical charts were available in Phase 1 and 100% of records from an obstetric database in Phase 2. No PHR or EHR had a complete dataset of best practice variables. The variables with significant improvement in completeness of data documented in the EHR, compared with the PHR, were urine culture, glucose tolerance test, nuchal screening, morphology scans, folic acid advice, tobacco smoking, illicit drug assessment and domestic violence assessment (p = 0.001). Additionally the documentation of immunisations (pertussis, hepatitis B, varicella, fluvax) were markedly improved in the EHR (p = 0.001). The variables of blood pressure, proteinuria, blood group, antibody, rubella and syphilis status, showed no significant differences in completeness of recording. Conclusion This is the first paper to report on the comparison of clinical data collected on a PHR and EHR in a maternity shared-care setting. The use of an EHR demonstrated significant improvements to the collection of best practice variables. Additionally, the data in an EHR were more available to relevant clinical staff with the appropriate log-in and more easily retrieved than from the PHR. This study contributes to an under-researched area of determining data quality collected in patient records.