PROSPECTIVE VALIDATION OF A NEW MODEL FOR EVALUATING EMERGENCY MEDICAL-SERVICES SYSTEMS BY IN-FIELD OBSERVATION OF SPECIFIC TIME INTERVALS IN PREHOSPITAL CARE

被引:102
作者
SPAITE, DW
VALENZUELA, TD
MEISLIN, HW
CRISS, EA
HINSBERG, P
机构
[1] Arizona Emergency Medicine Research Center, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson
关键词
emergency medical service systems; emergency medical services; evaluation; prehospital care;
D O I
10.1016/S0196-0644(05)81840-2
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
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,
引用
收藏
页码:638 / 645
页数:8
相关论文
共 72 条
[1]  
Gold, Prehospital advanced life support vs “scoop and run” in trauma management, Ann Emerg Med, 16, pp. 797-801, (1987)
[2]  
Trunkey, Is ALS necessary for prehospital trauma care?, J Trauma, 24, pp. 86-87, (1984)
[3]  
Smith, Bodai, Hill, Et al., Prehospital stabilization of critically injured patients: A failed concept, J Trauma, 25, pp. 65-70, (1985)
[4]  
Border, Lewis, Aprahamian, Et al., Panel: Prehospital trauma care—Stabilize or scoop and run, J Trauma, 23, pp. 708-711, (1983)
[5]  
Gervin, Fischer, The importance of proper transport in salvage of patients with penetrating heart wounds, J Trauma, 22, pp. 443-448, (1982)
[6]  
Hedges, Ferro, Moore, Et al., Factors contributing to paramedic on-scene time during evaluation and management of blunt trauma, Am J Emerg Med, 6, pp. 443-448, (1988)
[7]  
Ivatury, Nallathambi, Roberge, Et al., Penetrating thoracic injuries: In-field stabilization vs prompt transport, J Trauma, 27, pp. 1066-1073, (1987)
[8]  
Ramenotsky, Luterman, Curren, Et al., EMS for pediatrics Optimum treatment or unnecessary delay, Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 18, pp. 498-503, (1983)
[9]  
Clevenger, Yarbrough, Reines, Resuscitative thoracotomy: The effect of field time on outcome, J Trauma, 28, pp. 441-445, (1988)
[10]  
Tortella, Salant, Lavery, Et al., Standing orders for field intravenous lines does not shorten prehospital time in trauma patients, The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 30, (1990)