Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Emergency versus standard response: time efficacy of London’s Air Ambulance rapid response vehicle
  1. Marius Rehn1,2,3,
  2. Gareth Davies1,
  3. Paul Smith1,
  4. David Lockey1,3
  1. 1 London’s Air Ambulance, Barts Health Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, UK
  2. 2 Department of Research, The Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation, Drøbak, Norway
  3. 3 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
  1. Correspondence to Dr Marius Rehn, Department of Research and Development, Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation, Drøbak, 1441, Norway; marius.rehn{at}


Objective The potential increased risk of an emergency response using a rapid response vehicle (RRV) should only be accepted when it allows a clinically significant time saving for management of patients who are critically injured or sick. Air ambulance services often use an RRV to maintain operational resilience. We compared the RRV response time on emergency versus standard driving to inform emergency services of time efficacy of emergency response in an urban environment.

Methods Prospective observational controlled study of response data of emergency and standard driving. An identical RRV shadowed the medical team until the team was dispatched to a job (emergency driving). The shadow RRV then drove to the same given location from the same origin location in equal traffic conditions being compliant with all traffic signals, road signs and speed limits (standard driving).

Results The emergency response resulted in an estimated reduction in median response time of 14 min (95% CI 9 to 19) which represented a time saving of 54.9%. The estimated difference in distance travelled (0.6 km) was not statistically significant. Median speed was significantly higher when using an emergency response (46.1 IQR 39–53.4 km/hour) versus standard response (20.1 IQR 16.3–24.7 km/hour), with an estimated difference of −24.5 km/hour (95% CI −28.8 to −20.5).

Conclusions The current study found RRVs to be significantly quicker when responding with lights, sirens and traffic rule exemptions compared with a response being compliant with all traffic signals, road signs and speed limits.

  • accident prevention
  • doctors in PHC
  • effectiveness
  • emergency ambulance systems
  • safety

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors MR and PS conceived the idea and coordinated the data collection. All authors contributed to protocol design and writing the manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement Deidentified response data are available upon request to corresponding author.

Linked Articles