The impact of using time critical intervention-based dispatch thresholds on lowering lights and siren use to EMS 911 incidents

Jeffrey L. Jarvis MD, LP, Danny Johns BA, LP, Sydney E. Jarvis BA, Mike Knipstein RN, LP, Taylor Ratcliff MD, LP
{"title":"The impact of using time critical intervention-based dispatch thresholds on lowering lights and siren use to EMS 911 incidents","authors":"Jeffrey L. Jarvis MD, LP,&nbsp;Danny Johns BA, LP,&nbsp;Sydney E. Jarvis BA,&nbsp;Mike Knipstein RN, LP,&nbsp;Taylor Ratcliff MD, LP","doi":"10.1002/emp2.13232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Emergency Medical Services (EMS) has historically utilized lights and sirens (L&amp;S) to respond to 911 incidents. L&amp;S are used in 86% of scene responses nationally; however, time critical interventions (TCIs) occur in less than 7% of these incidents. Responses with L&amp;S are associated with increased risk of crashes and injuries. Our objective was to determine the impact of TCI-based dispatch thresholds on L&amp;S use, dispatch accuracy, and response times.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We performed a before-after retrospective evaluation of TCI-based dispatch methodology at a suburban EMS system. We categorized all EMS interventions as TCI or not, and we determined a TCI threshold above which we would use L&amp;S. We then assigned response priorities to each call nature based on the proportion of TCIs within them. We compared historical results with those from the 6 months following implementation in terms of L&amp;S use, dispatch accuracy, and response times.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There were 13,879 responses in the “before” group and 14,117 in the “after” group. The rate of L&amp;S use decreased from 56.2% in the before group to 27.6% in the after group, while TCIs were performed in 6.9% of responses in the before group and 7.6% in the after group. Accuracy increased from 48.8% to 75.1% and median response time increased by 0.1 min from 8.3 to 8.4 min.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Using TCI-based dispatch thresholds, we decreased L&amp;S use and increased accuracy with minimal increased response time. Our results support the use of this methodology to determine EMS response modes.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":73967,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11306916/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/emp2.13232","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) has historically utilized lights and sirens (L&S) to respond to 911 incidents. L&S are used in 86% of scene responses nationally; however, time critical interventions (TCIs) occur in less than 7% of these incidents. Responses with L&S are associated with increased risk of crashes and injuries. Our objective was to determine the impact of TCI-based dispatch thresholds on L&S use, dispatch accuracy, and response times.

Methods

We performed a before-after retrospective evaluation of TCI-based dispatch methodology at a suburban EMS system. We categorized all EMS interventions as TCI or not, and we determined a TCI threshold above which we would use L&S. We then assigned response priorities to each call nature based on the proportion of TCIs within them. We compared historical results with those from the 6 months following implementation in terms of L&S use, dispatch accuracy, and response times.

Results

There were 13,879 responses in the “before” group and 14,117 in the “after” group. The rate of L&S use decreased from 56.2% in the before group to 27.6% in the after group, while TCIs were performed in 6.9% of responses in the before group and 7.6% in the after group. Accuracy increased from 48.8% to 75.1% and median response time increased by 0.1 min from 8.3 to 8.4 min.

Conclusion

Using TCI-based dispatch thresholds, we decreased L&S use and increased accuracy with minimal increased response time. Our results support the use of this methodology to determine EMS response modes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用基于时间临界干预的调度阈值对降低 911 紧急医疗服务事件的警灯和警报器使用率的影响。
目标:紧急医疗服务(EMS)历来使用警灯和警报器(L&S)来应对 911 事件。在全国范围内,86% 的现场响应都使用了警灯和警报器;然而,在这些事件中,关键时间干预 (TCI) 的发生率不到 7%。使用 L&S 进行响应会增加撞车和受伤的风险。我们的目标是确定基于 TCI 的调度阈值对 L&S 使用、调度准确性和响应时间的影响:我们对郊区急救系统基于 TCI 的调度方法进行了前后回顾性评估。我们将所有急救干预分为 TCI 和非 TCI 两类,并确定了 TCI 临界值,超过该临界值,我们将使用 L&S。然后,我们根据 TCI 的比例为每种呼叫性质分配响应优先级。我们将历史结果与实施 L&S 6 个月后的结果进行了比较,包括 L&S 使用情况、调度准确性和响应时间:结果:"实施前 "组有 13,879 个响应,"实施后 "组有 14,117 个响应。使用 L&S 的比例从实施前组的 56.2% 降至实施后组的 27.6%,而实施 TCI 的比例则从实施前组的 6.9% 降至实施后组的 7.6%。准确率从 48.8% 提高到 75.1%,中位响应时间增加了 0.1 分钟,从 8.3 分钟增加到 8.4 分钟:结论:使用基于 TCI 的调度阈值,我们减少了 L&S 的使用,提高了准确性,而响应时间的增加却微乎其微。我们的结果支持使用这种方法来确定急救响应模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Passage of vaginal tissue in an non-pregnant adolescent A woman with sudden unilateral vision loss Factors influencing emergency medicine worker shift satisfaction: A rapid assessment of wellness in the emergency department The Dunning‒Kruger effect in resident predicted and actual performance on the American Board of Emergency Medicine in-training examination A multicenter randomized control trial: Point-of-care syndromic assessment versus standard testing in urgent care center patients with acute respiratory illness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1