R-code.

<div><p>Background</p><p>An increasing number of patients receive ambulance care without being conveyed to a definitive care provider. This process has been described as complex, challenging, and lacking in guideline support by EMS clinicians. The use of quality- and outcome measures among non-conveyed patients is an understudied phenomenon.</p><p>Aim</p><p>To identify current quality- and outcome measures for the general population of non-conveyed patients in order to describe major trends and knowledge gaps.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A scoping review of peer-reviewed original articles was conducted to identify quality- and outcome measures for non-conveyance within emergency medical services. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews statement (PRISMA-ScR) was followed. The PROSPERO and OSF database were checked for pending reviews or protocols. PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library database were searched for relevant articles. Searches were performed in November 2023.</p><p>Results</p><p>Thirty-six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Mortality was the most used outcome measure, reported in 24 (67%) of the articles. Emergency department attendance and hospital admission were the following most used outcome measures. Follow-up durations varied substantially between both measures and studies. Mortality rates were found to have the longest follow-up times, with a median follow-up duration a little bit over one week.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>This scoping review shows that studies report a wide range of quality and outcome measures in the ambulance setting to measure non-conveyance. Reported quality and outcome measures were also heterogeneous with regard to their follow-up timeframe. The variety of approaches to evaluate non-conveyance poses challenges for future research and quality improvement. A more uniform approach to reporting and measuring non-conveyance is needed to enable comparisons between contexts and formal meta-analysis.</p></div>