The goal of this systematic review was to examine the existing literature base regarding the factors impacting patient outcomes associated with use of emergency medical services (EMS) operating in urban versus rural areas. A specific subfocus on low and lower-middle-income countries was planned but acknowledged in advance as being potentially limited by a lack of available data. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed during the preparation of this systematic review. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EBSCO (Elton B. Stephens Company) host, Web of Science, ProQuest, Embase, and Scopus was conducted through May 2018. To appraise the quality of the included papers, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklists (CASP) were used. Thirty-one relevant and appropriate studies were identified; however, only one study from a low or lower-middle-income country was located. The research indicated that EMS in urban areas are more likely to have shorter prehospital times, response times, on-scene times, and transport times when compared to EMS operating in rural areas. Additionally, urban patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or trauma were found to have higher survival rates than rural patients. EMS in urban areas were generally associated with improved performance measures in key areas and associated higher survival rates than those in rural areas. These findings indicate that reducing key differences between rural and urban settings is a key factor in improving trauma patient survival rates. More research in rural areas is required to better understand the factors which can predict these differences and underpin improvements. The lack of research in this area is particularly evident in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

Background Response impacts on treatment outcomes, particularly for time-sensitive illnesses, including trauma. This study compares key outcome measures for emergency medical services (EMS) operating in urban versus rural areas in the Riyadh region of Saudi Arabia. Methods A cross-sectional study of EMS users was conducted using a random sampling method. Primary outcome measures were response time, on-scene time, transport time interval and survival rates. Secondary outcomes were the length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital. Data were compared between the urban and rural groups using the t-test and chi-square test. Results Eight-hundred patients (n=400 urban, n=400 rural) were included in the final analysis. Cases in rural areas had significantly higher response times and duration times (median response 15 vs. 22 minutes, median duration 43 vs. 62 minutes). Response times were significantly longer for rural areas for MVC, industrial accidents, medical incidents and trauma, but there was no significant difference in duration time for industrial accidents. While urban areas had significantly shorter response times for all incident types, there was no difference with rural areas in duration time for chest injury, gastrointestinal, neurological or respiratory problems. Conclusion The findings indicate that response time and duration differs between urban and rural locations in a number of key areas. The factors underlying these differences need to be the subject of specific follow-up research in order to make recommendations as to the best way to improve EMS in Saudi Arabia and to close the gap in rural and urban service delivery.

Background: There is limited research outside the USA, Europe, or Australia on the capacity, efficiency, and development of prehospital emergency medicine services (EMS) between urban and rural areas. This study aimed to examine the usage of prehospital EMS across rural and urban areas in Riyadh region in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Methods: A random sample of 800 (400 urban and 400 rural) emergency patient records from the Saudi Red Crescent Authority EMS was collected. The following variables were analyzed: patient demographics, clinical characteristics, length of hospital stay, and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Results: A skewed distribution was noted with respect to sex, i.e., 559 men versus 241 women. Rural patients were younger (42.75 vs. 39.72 years) and had significantly longer hospital (15 days versus 9 days) and ICU (5 days versus 2 days) stays than urban patients following transportation. All injury types were comparable, except for head injury, which was higher in the rural group than in the urban group. Advanced treatment and trauma transport were more often used in rural areas than in urban areas. Conclusions: In this study, rural EMS users were more likely to experience trauma-related incidents that necessitate EMS transportation, while medical reasons were more common among urban EMS users. Moreover, men used EMS at much higher rates than women and were more likely to be transported to the hospital following a call-out.

Background: Callouts resulting in patient nontransportation can impact the overall quality of prehospital Emergency Medical Service (EMS), as resources in health care are finite. While some studies have investigated the causes of nontransportation, few have examined whether there are differences between urban and rural patients. Similarly, there has been limited research focused on rural EMS in locations such as the Middle East. Objectives: This study investigated EMS cases that resulted in nontransportation in the urban and rural areas of the Riyadh region in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 800 (400 rural and 400 urban) patient records was undertaken, using 12 months (January 1 to December 31, 2017) of data from the Saudi Red Crescent EMS. A random sampling method was used to select ambulance records from the 78 urban and rural EMS stations in the Riyadh region, with demographic data and reasons for patient nontransport analyzed comparatively. Results: A total of 310 cases were nontransported (39%) (rural: 146; urban = 164). The highest rates of nontransportation cases were of medical and trauma callouts (44.6% and 39.6%, respectively), which was consistent in both areas. The most common reason for nontransportation in both urban and rural areas was refusal of treatment and transportation (66.5% and 59.9%, respectively). Further, 10 patients were treated on-scene and released by rural EMS, while no urban patients were treated and released. Overall, the case presentations of nontransported patients did not differ significantly between both areas, and it was found that gender, age, and geographic location were not predictors for nontransportation. Conclusions: The high rate of nontransportation, particularly in medical and trauma callouts, indicates that a review of current EMS protocols may be required, along with consideration of relevant community education programs.

Background There is a disparity in outcomes between rural and urban emergency medical services (EMS) around the world. However, there is a scarcity of research that directly asks EMS staff in both rural and urban areas how service delivery could be improved. The aim of the present study is to gain insights from frontline workers regarding organisational factors that may underpin discrepancies between rural and urban EMS performance. Subject and methods The study was undertaken in the Riyadh region of Saudi Arabia. Potential participants were currently employed by Saudi Red Crescent EMS as either a technician, paramedic or an EMS station manager, and had a minimum of five years experience with the EMS. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken between October 2019 and July 2020 with first respondents to a call for participants, and continued until data saturation was reached. All interviews were conducted in Arabic and transcribed verbatim. The Arabic transcript was shared with each participant, and they were asked to confirm their agreement with the transcription. The transcribed interviews were then translated into English; the English versions were shared with bi-lingual participants for validation, while independent certification of the translations were performed for data from participants not fluent in English. A thematic analysis methodological approach was used to examine the data. Results The final sample involved 20 participants (10 rural, 10 urban) from Saudi Red Crescent EMS. Data analyses identified key organisational factors that resulted in barriers and impediments for EMS staff. Differences and similarities were observed between rural and urban respondents, with identified issues including response and transportation time, service coordination, reason for call-out, as well as human and physical resourcing. Conclusion The findings identified key issues impacting on EMS performance across both rural and urban areas. In order to address these problems, three changes are recommended. These recommendations include a comprehensive review of rural EMS vehicles, with a particular focus on the age; incentives to improve the numbers of paramedics in rural areas and more localised specialist training opportunities for rurally-based personnel; and the implementation of national public education program focusing on the role of the EMS.