Evidence-based performance measures for emergency medical services systems: a model for expanded EMS benchmarking.

There are few evidence-based measures of emergency medical services (EMS) system performance. In many jurisdictions, response-time intervals for advanced life support units and resuscitation rates for victims of cardiac arrest are the primary measures of EMS system performance. The association of the former with patient outcomes is not supported explicitly by the medical literature, while the latter focuses on a very small proportion of the EMS patient population and thus does not represent a sufficiently broad selection of patients. While these metrics have their place in performance measurement, a more robust method to measure and benchmark EMS performance is needed. The 2007 U.S. Metropolitan Municipalities' EMS Medical Directors' Consortium has developed the following model that encompasses a broader range of clinical situations, including myocardial infarction, pulmonary edema, bronchospasm, status epilepticus, and trauma. Where possible, the benefit conferred by EMS interventions is presented in the number needed to treat format. It is hoped that utilization of this model will serve to improve EMS system design and deployment strategies while enhancing the benchmarking and sharing of best practices among EMS systems.

Facilitating EMS turnaround intervals at hospitals in the face of receiving facility overcrowding.

The escalating national problem of oversaturated hospital beds and emergency departments (EDs) has resulted in serious operational impediments within patient-receiving facilities. It has also had a growing impact on the 9-1-1 emergency care system. Beyond the long-standing difficulties arising from ambulance diversion practices, many emergency medical services (EMS) crews are now finding themselves detained in EDs for protracted periods, unable to transfer care of their transported patients to ED staff members. Key factors have included a lack of beds or stretcher space, and, in some cases, EMS personnel are used transiently for ED patient care services. In other circumstances, ED staff members no longer prioritize rapid turnaround of EMS-transported patients because of the increasing volume and acuity of patients already in their care. The resulting detention of EMS crews confounds concurrent ambulance availability problems, creates concrete risks for delayed EMS responses to impending critical cases, and incurs regulatory jeopardy for hospitals. Communities should take appropriate steps to ensure that delivery intervals (time elapsing from entry into the hospital to physical transfer of patient care to ED staff) remain extremely brief (less than a few minutes) and that they rarely exceed 10 minutes. While recognizing that the root causes of these issues will require far-reaching national health care policy changes, EMS and local government officials should still maintain ongoing dialogues with hospital chief administrators to mitigate this mutual crisis of escalating service demands. Federal and state health officials should also play an active role in monitoring progress and compliance.