The questionnaire was sent to 1658 patients. Responses were received from 888 (53.6%), 481 patients were attended by SRPara or EMTs and 407 by ECPs. This exceeds the 580 respondents required to detect a 10% difference from a baseline of 80% “very” positive,5
at 80% power.
Respondents were older than non‐respondents (χ2
3, p<0.001), but there were no significant differences in sex, ethnicity, call category, conveyance or the interval between care and questionnaire. Respondents attended by SRPara or EMTs or by ECPs were also similar, except that 80.2% of those attended by SRPara or EMTs were conveyed to the emergency department compared with 58.0% of those attended by ECPs (χ2
For most aspects of care, most respondents gave “very” positive ratings, but fewer than half did so for “explanations”, “information provided” or for being “comfortable with what happened” (table 1). Additional data are available online at http://emj.bmjjournals.com/supplemental
Table 1Respondents' views of care received from state‐registered paramedic or emergency medical technician and emergency care practitioners
Compared with respondents attended by SRPara or EMTs, ECP‐attended respondents were significantly more likely to rank “thoroughness of assessment” (odds ratio (OR) 1.4; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 1.9) and “staff explaining what would happen” (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.1) “very” positively. However, though the difference in “explaining what would happen next” was unchanged after controlling for variation in conveyance, the difference in “thoroughness of assessment” was no longer significant (OR 1.3; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.8).