EMS/Original contribution
Prospective validation of a new model for evaluating emergency medical services systems by in-field observation of specific time intervals in prehospital care

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(05)81840-2Get rights and content

Study objective:

To develop and validate a new time interval model for evaluating operational and patient care issues in emergency medical service (EMS) systems.

Design/setting/type of participant:

Prospective analysis of 300 EMS responses among 20 advanced life support agencies throughout an entire state by direct, in-field observation.

Results:

Mean times (minutes) were response, 6.8; patient access, 1.0; initial assessment, 3.3; scene treatment, 4.4; patient removal, 5.5; transport, 11.7; delivery, 3.5; and recovery, 22.9. The largest component of the on-scene interval was patient removal. Scene treatment accounted for only 31.0% of the on-scene interval, whereas accessing and removing patients took nearly half of the on-scene interval (45.8%). Operational problems (eg, communi-cations, equipment, uncooperative patient) increased patient removal (6.4 versus 4.5; P = .004), recovery (25.4 versus 20.2; P = .03), and out-of-service (43.0 versus 30.1; P = .007) intervals. Rural agencies had longer response (9.9 versus 6.4; P = .014), transport (21.9 versus 10.3; P < .0005), and recovery (29.8 versus 22.1; P = .049) intervals than nonrural. The total on-scene interval was longer if an IV line was attempted at the scene (17.2 versus 12.2; P < .0001). This reflected an increase in scene treatment (9.2 versus 2.8; P < .0001), while patient access and patient removal remained unchanged. However, the time spent attempting IV lines at the scene accounted for only a small part of scene treatment (1.3 minutes; 14.1%) and an even smaller portion of the overall on-scene interval (7.6%). Most of the increase in scene treatment was accounted for by other activities than the IV line attempts.

Conclusion:

A new model reported and studied prospectively is useful as an evaluative research tool for EMS systems and is broadly applicable to many settings in a demographically diverse state. This model can provide accurate information to system researchers, medical directors, and administrators for altering and improving EMS systems.

References (72)

  • ValenzuelaTD et al.

    Cost-effectiveness analysis of paramedic emergency medical services in the treatment of prehospital cardiopulmonary arrest

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1990)
  • ShusterM et al.

    Pharmacologic intervention in prehospital care: A critical appraisal

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1989)
  • DeanNC et al.

    Effect of mobile paramedic units on outcome in patients with myocardial infarction

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1988)
  • AprahamianCA et al.

    Traumatic cardiac arrest: Scope of paramedic services

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1985)
  • CwinnAA et al.

    Prehospital advanced trauma life support for critical blunt trauma victims

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1987)
  • HonigmanB et al.

    Prehospital advanced trauma life support for penetrating cardiac wounds

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1990)
  • SlovisCM et al.

    Success rates for initiation of intravenous therapy en route by prehospital care providers

    Am J Emerg Med

    (1990)
  • WermanHA et al.

    Basic trauma life support

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1987)
  • JonesSE et al.

    Prehospital intravenous line placement: A prospective study

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1989)
  • PotterD et al.

    A controlled trial of prehospital advanced life support in trauma

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1988)
  • OrnatoJP et al.

    Limitation on effectiveness of rapid defibrillation by emergency medical technicians in a rural setting

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1984)
  • BowmanWD

    The development and current status of wilderness prehospital emergency care in the United States

    J Wilderness Med

    (1990)
  • DiamondNJ et al.

    Factors in successful resuscitation by paramedics

    JACEP

    (1977)
  • StarkG et al.

    Patients who refuse prehospital evaluation and/or therapy

    Am J Emerg Med

    (1990)
  • ProppDA et al.

    A comparison of estimated time of arrival and actual time of arrival to an emergency department

    Am J Emerg Med

    (1991)
  • SpaiteDW et al.

    Prehospital data entry compliance by paramedics after institution of a comprehensive EMS data collection tool

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1990)
  • CaytenCG et al.

    Assessing the validity of EMS data

    JACEP

    (1978)
  • StuevenH et al.

    Bystander/first responder CPR: Ten years experience in a paramedic system

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1986)
  • ThompsonBM et al.

    Comparison of clinical CPR studies in Milwaukee and elsewhere in the United States

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1985)
  • TrunkeyD

    Is ALS necessary for prehospital trauma care?

    J Trauma

    (1984)
  • SmithP et al.

    Prehospital stabilization of critically injured patients: A failed concept

    J Trauma

    (1985)
  • BorderJR et al.

    Panel: Prehospital trauma careā€”Stabilize or scoop and run

    J Trauma

    (1983)
  • GervinAS et al.

    The importance of proper transport in salvage of patients with penetrating heart wounds

    J Trauma

    (1982)
  • IvaturyRR et al.

    Penetrating thoracic injuries: In-field stabilization vs prompt transport

    J Trauma

    (1987)
  • RamenotskyML et al.

    EMS for pediatrics: Optimum treatment or unnecessary delay

    J Pediatr Surg

    (1983)
  • ClevengerFW et al.

    Resuscitative thoracotomy: The effect of field time on outcome

    J Trauma

    (1988)
  • Cited by (136)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Presented at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 1992.

    View full text