Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T05:40:36.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why the Closest Ambulance Cannot be Dispatched in an Urban Emergency Medical Services System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Stephen F. Dean
Stephen F. Dean*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Health Services, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
*
Department of Emergency Health Services University of Maryland, Baltimore County 1000 Hilltop Circle Baltimore, Maryland 21250, USA E-Mail: sdean@umbc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Response time performance is related to increased survival for a relatively small group of patients with critical emergencies. Effectively utilizing current resources is a challenge for all emergency medical services (EMS) systems for reasons of cost-effectiveness and safety.

Problem:

The objective of this study was to identify opportunities for improving ambulance response-time performance in an urban EMS system using fixed deployment.

Methods:

This was a qualitative and quantitative case study which consisted of structured interviews with policy makers, managers, and workers in a fire department EMS division, as well as analysis of dispatch data and observation of dispatch operations.

Results:

The current computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system does not identify the closest ambulance to the emergency, and therefore, dispatchers must guess which unit is closer when units are not within their stations or “first due” areas. There is no means to track how often dispatchers guess correctly or how often the closest ambulance actually is dispatched to the emergency.

Temporal and geographic patterns were identified. Opportunities also were identified to improve response time performance through the use of dynamic deployment and peak-load staffing.

Conclusions:

The results suggest that there were opportunities for improving ambulance response times by implementing strategies such as peak-load staffing and dynamic deployment. However, the most important improvement would be the implementation of a policy to send the closest ambulance to the emergency. More research is needed to identify how prevalent the failure to send the closest ambulance is within EMS systems that use fixeddeployment response strategies and computer-aided dispatch systems that are incapable of tracking unit locations outside of their stations.

Keywords

ambulancesambulance response timeEmergency Medical Services communication systemsparamedic
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 161 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Pons, PT, Haukoos, JS, Bludworth, W, et al. : Paramedic response time: Does it affect patient survival? Acad Emerg Med 2005;12:594–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Blackwell, TH, Kaufman, JS: Comparison of response time and survival in an urban emergency medical services system. Acad Emerg Med 2002;9:288–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Clawson, J: Priority Dispatch Response. In: , Kuehl (eds), Prehospital Systems Medical Oversight. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 2002, pp 208–228.Google Scholar
4. International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation: 2005 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation 2005;112(24s1).Google Scholar
5. Savas, ES: Simulation and cost-effectiveness analysis of New York's emergency ambulance service. Management Science 1969;15:608–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Holloway, R: New York City's experience in improving ambulance service. Health Services Reports 1972;87:445–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Ryan, JL: Quality Management. In: A, Kuehl (ed), Prehospital Systems Medical Oversight. St. Louis: Mosby, 1994, pp 217–246.Google Scholar
8. Overton, J: High Performance and EMS: Market Study 2002. Richmond: North American Association of Public Utility Models, 2002.Google Scholar
9. Overton, J, Stout, J: System Design. In: A, Kuehl (ed),Prehospital Systems Medical Oversight. St. Louis: Mosby, 2002, pp 114–131.Google Scholar
10. Arreola-Risa, C, Mock, CN, Lojero-Wheatly, L, et al. : Low-cost improvements in prehospital trauma care in a Latin American city. J Trauma 2000;48:119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Peleg, K, Pliskin, JS: A geographic information system simulation model of EMS: Reducing ambulance response time. Am J Emerg Med 2004;22:164–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Maguire, BJ, Hunting, KL, Smith, GS, et al. : Occupational fatalities in emergency medical services: A hidden crisis. Ann Emerg Med 2002;40:625–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Clawson, J: Emergency Medical Dispatch. In: A, Kuehl (ed), Prehospital Systems Medical Oversight. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt, 2002, pp 172–207.Google Scholar
14. Williams, DM: 2006 JEMS 200-City Survey. JEMS 2007;32:38–54.Google ScholarPubMed
15. Fitch, JJ: Strategic Deployment. JEMS 2002;27:36–45.Google Scholar
16. Williams, DM: 2005 JEMS 200-City Survey. JEMS 2006;31:44–61,100–101.Google ScholarPubMed