# Missed opportunities of feedback for emergency ambulance staff: a mixed-methods diary study

## TL;DR

Emergency ambulance staff receive limited feedback, and this study explores what types of feedback they desire and how they use it for learning.

## Contribution

The study identifies specific feedback preferences and learning behaviors of ambulance staff, offering actionable insights for improving feedback systems.

## Key findings

- Ambulance staff prefer patient-outcome feedback from non-ambulance professionals and delivered electronically.
- Self-directed learning after feedback includes reflection and discussions with colleagues.
- Feedback is most desired for neurological and cardiovascular cases and non-conveyed patients.

## Abstract

Providing feedback to emergency ambulance staff on performance or patient outcomes may improve care quality and professional development. Current feedback provision in ambulance services is limited and staff desire more feedback; however, we do not know what feedback would be most useful. This study aimed to determine the quality of feedback received by emergency ambulance staff, describe self-directed learning activities performed after receiving feedback (e.g. ‘reflected on what exactly I did right/wrong’) and identify situations where ambulance staff desired enhanced feedback.

An observational mixed-methods study was used. Emergency ambulance staff delivering face-to-face patient care in the United Kingdom’s National Health Service completed a baseline survey and diary entries between March and August 2022. Diary entries were event contingent and were collected when a participant identified that they had received feedback or desired feedback but had not received it. Free-text qualitative responses were categorised using content analysis before being included in the quantitative analyses. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Baseline surveys were completed by 299 participants; 100 participants submitted 374 feedback-desired diary entries and 105 participants submitted 538 feedback-received diary entries. Ambulance staff expressed a statistically significant preference for patient-outcome feedback (77.8% [95% CI 74.0, 82.1]), provided by non-ambulance healthcare professionals (70.7% [66.2, 75.3]) and delivered electronically (54.0% [48.9, 59.4]). Feedback was particularly desired for cases involving neurological (17.1%) and cardiovascular (16.6%) conditions and non-conveyed patients (11.5%). Self-directed learning activities post feedback included reflection (61.5%), considering alignment with own judgement (41.1%) and discussions with colleagues (37.0%).

The study identifies critical gaps in current feedback practices within ambulance services and provides directions for feedback designs that would enhance existing systems and approaches. Training programmes should educate ambulance staff on effective feedback utilisation and management of both positive and negative feedback. Cultivating a supportive feedback culture within ambulance services is crucial for fostering continuous professional growth and improving patient care outcomes.