Delphi study to evaluate the emergency medical system operation fund support projects
- Author:
Sun Young LEE
1
;
Youdong SOHN
;
Sang Do SHIN
;
Kyoung Jun SONG
;
Ki Jeong HONG
;
Young Sun RO
;
Tae Han KIM
;
Jeong Ho PARK
;
Gwan Jin PARK
;
Seo Young KO
;
Seung Chul LEE
;
Eujene JUNG
;
Sungbae MOON
Author Information
1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital (National Fire Agency), Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Emergency medical services (EMS);
Delphi technique;
Resource allocation
- MeSH:
Committee Membership;
Consensus;
Delphi Technique;
Emergencies;
Emergency Medicine;
Financial Management;
Korea;
Methods;
Resource Allocation;
Surveys and Questionnaires
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Emergency Medicine
2019;30(4):328-347
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to achieve expert consensus for the evaluation of Emergency medical system operation fund (EMSOF) support projects using the Delphi method in Korea. METHODS: The Delphi study was performed in June 2018. Experts who are members of the policy committee of the Korean Society of Emergency Medicine (KSEM) participated in the study. Respondents were asked to express their level of agreement of appropriateness for the following 6 categories for 21 projects: project contents, amount of support, indicators, performance, overall evaluation, and need to maintain. With a possible score of 9 points, the project categories were classified into 3 groups, inappropriate, moderate and appropriate, based on the median score of the respondents' ratings in each question. RESULTS: Sixteen of the 18 policy committee members participated in the survey. Their average professional work years were 8.2 years. All 21 projects were evaluated as appropriate for content. Amount of support and indicators were evaluated as moderate. Only 5 out of the 21 projects were evaluated as having appropriate indicators. No projects were evaluated as ineffective. Comprehensive evaluation of the projects was evaluated as moderate, and no project was evaluated as inappropriate in fund support. CONCLUSION: Overall, the contents of the EMSOF assistance project were rated high; however, there was a disagreement on the amount of support and evaluation indicators for each project. The results of this study are expected to be used as basic data to improve the use of EMSOF.
