Achieving Equity in EMS Care and Patient Outcomes Through Quality Management Systems: A Position Statement.

Improving health and safety in our communities requires deliberate focus and commitment to equity. Inequities are differences in access, treatment, and outcomes between individuals and across populations that are systemic, avoidable, and unjust. Within health care in general, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in particular, there are demonstrated inequities in the quality of care provided to patients based on a number of characteristics linked to discrimination, exclusion, or bias. Given the critical role that EMS plays within the health care system, it is imperative that EMS systems reduce inequities by delivering evidence-based, high-quality care for the communities and patients we serve. To achieve equity in EMS care delivery and patient outcomes, the National Association of EMS Physicians recommends that EMS systems and agencies: make health equity a strategic priority and commit to improving equity at all levels.assess and monitor clinical and safety quality measures through the lens of inequities as an integrated part of the quality management process.ensure that data elements are structured to enable equity analysis at every level and routinely evaluate data for limitations hindering equity analysis and improvement.involve patients and community stakeholders in determining data ownership and stewardship to ensure its ongoing evolution and fitness for use for measuring care inequities.address biases as they translate into the quality of care and standards of respect for patients.pursue equity through a framework rooted in the principles of improvement science.

Disparities in Emergency Medical Services Care Delivery in the United States: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Emergency medical services (EMS) often serve as the first medical contact for ill or injured patients, representing a critical access point to the health care delivery continuum. While a growing body of literature suggests inequities in care within hospitals and emergency departments, limited research has comprehensively explored disparities related to patient demographic characteristics in prehospital care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to summarize the existing literature on disparities in prehospital care delivery for patients identifying as members of an underrepresented race, ethnicity, sex, gender, or sexual orientation group. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed (gray) literature. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Proquest Dissertations, Scopus, Google, and professional websites for studies set in the U.S. between 1960 and 2021. Each abstract and full-text article was screened by two reviewers. Studies written in English that addressed the underrepresented groups of interest and investigated EMS-related encounters were included. Studies were excluded if a disparity was noted incidentally but was not a stated objective or discussed. Data extraction was conducted using a standardized electronic form. Results were summarized qualitatively using an inductive approach. RESULTS: One hundred forty-five full-text articles from the peer-reviewed literature and two articles from the gray literature met inclusion criteria: 25 studies investigated sex/gender, 61 studies investigated race/ethnicity, and 58 studies investigated both. One study investigated sexual orientation. The most common health conditions evaluated were out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (n = 50), acute coronary syndrome (n = 36), and stroke (n = 31). The phases of EMS care investigated included access (n = 55), pre-arrival care (n = 46), diagnosis/treatment (n = 42), and response/transport (n = 40), with several studies covering multiple phases. Disparities were identified related to all phases of EMS care for underrepresented groups, including symptom recognition, pain management, and stroke identification. The gray literature identified public perceptions of EMS clinicians' cultural competency and the ability to appropriately care for transgender patients in the prehospital setting. CONCLUSIONS: Existing research highlights health disparities in EMS care delivery throughout multiple health outcomes and phases of EMS care. Future research is needed to identify structured mechanisms to eliminate disparities, address clinician bias, and provide high-quality equitable care for all patient populations.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the United States Emergency Medical Services Workforce: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency medical services (EMS) workforce demographics in the United States do not reflect the diversity of the population served. Despite some efforts by professional organizations to create a more representative workforce, little has changed in the last decade. This scoping review aims to summarize existing literature on the demographic composition, recruitment, retention, and workplace experience of underrepresented groups within EMS. METHODS: Peer-reviewed studies were obtained from a search of PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, ProQuest Thesis and Dissertations, and non-peer-reviewed ("gray") literature from 1960 to present. Abstracts and included full-text articles were screened by two independent reviewers trained on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies were included if they pertained to the demographics, training, hiring, retention, promotion, compensation, or workplace experience of underrepresented groups in United States EMS by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender. Studies of non-EMS fire department activities were excluded. Disputes were resolved by two authors. A single reviewer screened the gray literature. Data extraction was performed using a standardized electronic form. Results were summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: We identified 87 relevant full-text articles from the peer-reviewed literature and 250 items of gray literature. Primary themes emerging from peer-reviewed literature included workplace experience (n = 48), demographics (n = 12), workforce entry and exit (n = 8), education and testing (n = 7), compensation and benefits (n = 5), and leadership, mentorship, and promotion (n = 4). Most articles focused on sex/gender comparisons (65/87, 75%), followed by race/ethnicity comparisons (42/87, 48%). Few articles examined sexual orientation (3/87, 3%). One study focused on telecommunicators and three included EMS physicians. Most studies (n = 60, 69%) were published in the last decade. In the gray literature, media articles (216/250, 86%) demonstrated significant industry discourse surrounding these primary themes. CONCLUSIONS: Existing EMS workforce research demonstrates continued underrepresentation of women and nonwhite personnel. Additionally, these studies raise concerns for pervasive negative workplace experiences including sexual harassment and factors that negatively affect recruitment and retention, including bias in candidate testing, a gender pay gap, and unequal promotion opportunities. Additional research is needed to elucidate recruitment and retention program efficacy, the demographic composition of EMS leadership, and the prevalence of racial harassment and discrimination in this workforce.

Evaluation of telephone-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation recommendations for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

AIM OF THE STUDY: While out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is associated with poor survival, early bystander CPR (B-CPR) and telephone CPR (T-CPR) improves survival from OHCA. American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Statements outline recommendations for T-CPR. We assessed these recommendations and hypothesized that meeting performance standards is associated with increased likelihood of survival. Additional variables were analyzed to identify future performance measurements. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of non-traumatic, adult, OHCA using the Singapore Pan-Asian Resuscitation Outcomes Study. The primary outcome was likelihood of survival; secondary outcomes were pre-hospital Return of Spontaneous Circulation (ROSC) and B-CPR. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2016, 2,574 arrests met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 68 ± 15; of 2,574, 1,125 (44%) received T-CPR with 5% (135/2574) survival. T-CPR cases that met the Lerner et al. performance metrics analyzed, demonstrated no statistically significant association with survival. Cases which met the Kurz et al. criteria, "Time for Dispatch to Recognize Need for CPR" and "Time to First Compression," had adjusted odds ratios of survival of 1.01 (95% CI:1.00, 1.02; p = <0.01) and 0.99 (95% CI:0.99, 0.99; p = <0.01), respectively. Identified barriers to CPR decreased the odds of T-CPR and B-CPR being performed. Patients with prehospital ROSC had higher odds of B-CPR being performed. EMS response time < 8 minutes was associated with increased survival among patients receiving T-CPR. CONCLUSION: AHA scientific statements on T-CPR programs serve as ideal starting points for increasing the quality of T-CPR systems and patient outcomes. More work is needed to identify other system performance measures.