Background-Prior studies found that only about half of stroke patients arrived at hospitals via emergency medical services (EMSs), yet since then, there have been efforts to increase public awareness that time is brain. Using contemporary Get With the Guidelines-Stroke data, we assessed nationwide EMS use by stroke patients. Methods and Results-We analyzed data from 204 591 patients with ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke admitted to 1563 GetWith the Guidelines-Stroke participating hospitals with data on National Institute of Health Stroke Score and insurance status. Hospital arrival by EMSs was observed in 63.7% of patients. Older patients, those with Medicaid and Medicare insurance, and those with severe stroke were more likely to activate EMSs. In contrast, minority race and ethnicity and living in rural communities were associated with decreased odds of EMS use. EMS transport was independently associated with earlier arrival (onset-to-door time, ≤3 hours; adjusted odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.93-2.08), prompter evaluation (more patients with door-to-imaging time, ≤25 minutes; odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-2.00), more rapid treatment (more patients with door-to-needle time, ≤60 minutes; odds ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.63), and more eligible patients to be treated with tissue-type plasminogen activator if onset is ≤2 hours (67% versus 44%; odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-1.64). Conclusions-Although EMS use is independently associated with more rapid evaluation and treatment of stroke, more than one third of stroke patients fail to use EMSs. Interventions aimed at increasing EMS activation should target populations at risk, particularly younger patients and those of minority race and ethnicity. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6:262-269.)

BACKGROUND: Disparities in health care services between Hispanics and whites in the United States are well documented. OBJECTIVE:The objective of the study was to determine whether language spoken at home identifies Hispanics at risk for not receiving recommended health care services. DESIGN:The design of the study was cross-sectional, nationally representative survey of households. PATIENTS:The patients were non-Hispanic white and Hispanic adults participating in the 2003 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. MEASUREMENTS:We compared receipt of ten recommended health care services by ethnicity and primary language adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, health status, and access to care. RESULTS:The sample included 12,706 whites and 5,500 Hispanics. In bivariate comparisons, 57.0% of whites received all eligible health care services compared to 53.6% for Hispanics who spoke English at home, 44.9% for Hispanics who did not speak English at home but who were comfortable speaking English, and 35.0% for Hispanics who did not speak English at home and were uncomfortable speaking English (p<.001). In multivariate logistic models, compared to non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics who did not speak English at home were less likely to receive all eligible health care services, whether they were comfortable speaking English (risk ratio [RR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.97) or not (RR 0.84,.CONCLUSIONS: Speaking a language other than English at home identified Hispanics at risk for not receiving recommended health care services, whether they were comfortable in speaking English or not. Identifying the mechanism for disparities by language usage may lead to interventions to reduce ethnic disparities.