Objective There is an absence of nationally representative data describing pediatric patients who use emergency medical services (EMS) and the factors associated with EMS use by children. This study characterizes pediatric emergency department (ED) visits for which the patient arrived by EMS and identifies factors associated with those visits using a nationally representative database. Methods A secondary analysis of the ED component of the 1997–2000 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey was performed. The dependent variable was the mode of arrival to the ED (EMS vs. not EMS), and independent variables were grouped into four domains: demographic, clinical, system, and service characteristics. Bivariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results There were 110.9 million ED visits by children aged <19 years between 1997 and 2000. Pediatric patients constituted 27.3% of all ED visits during this time, and 7.9 million (7.1%) of these patients arrived via EMS. Pediatric patients represented 13% of all EMS transports. The annual EMS utilization rate by children was 26 per 1,000, compared with 66 per 1,000 in the adult population (p < 0.001). Sixteen percent of children transported by EMS were admitted to the hospital. Sixty-two percent of pediatric patients arriving at the ED by EMS were transported as a result of injury or poisoning. Characteristics significantly associated with arrival by EMS in the final multivariate model included demographic (age, African American race, urban residence), clinical (need for greater immediacy of care, illnesses associated with certain diagnoses), and service (greater number of diagnostic services) variables. Conclusions Pediatric patients transported by EMS are more likely to have injuries and poisoning, and have higher-acuity illness than those arriving at the ED by other means. The epidemiology of pediatric EMS use may have important operational, training, and public health implications and requires further study.

Objective We describe the decision-making process used by emergency medical services (EMS) providers in order to understand how: 1) injured patients are evaluated in the prehospital setting; 2) field triage criteria are applied in-practice; and 3) selection of a destination hospital is determined. Methods We conducted separate focus groups with advanced and basic life support providers from rural and urban/suburban regions. Four exploratory focus groups were conducted to identify overarching themes and five additional confirmatory focus groups were conducted to verify initial focus group findings and provide additional detail regarding trauma triage decision-making and application of field triage criteria. All focus groups were conducted by a public health researcher with formal training in qualitative research. A standardized question guide was used to facilitate discussion at all focus groups. All focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Responses were coded and categorized into larger domains to describe how EMS providers approach trauma triage and apply the Field Triage Decision Scheme. Results We conducted 9 focus groups with 50 EMS providers. Participants highlighted that trauma triage is complex and there is often limited time to make destination decisions. Four overarching domains were identified within the context of trauma triage decision-making: 1) initial assessment; 2) importance of speed versus accuracy; 3) usability of current field triage criteria; and 4) consideration of patient and emergency care system-level factors. Conclusions Field triage is a complex decision-making process which involves consideration of many patient and system-level factors. The decision model presented in this study suggests that EMS providers place significant emphasis on speed of decisions, relying on initial impressions and immediately observable information, rather than precise measurement of vital signs or systematic application of field triage criteria.

Objective To determine the predictive value of the Mechanism of Injury step of the American College of Surgeon’s Field Triage Decision Scheme for determining trauma center need. Methods EMS providers caring for injured adult patients transported to the regional trauma center in 3 midsized communities over two years were interviewed upon ED arrival. Included was any injured patient, regardless of injury severity. The interview collected patient physiologic condition, apparent anatomic injury, and mechanism of injury. Using the 1999 Scheme, patients who met the physiologic or anatomic steps were excluded. Patients were considered to need a trauma center if they had non-orthopedic surgery within 24 hours, intensive care unit admission, or died prior to hospital discharge. Data were analyzed by calculating positive likelihood ratios (+LR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each mechanism of injury criteria. Results 11,892 provider interviews were conducted. Of those, 1was excluded because outcome data were not available and 2,408 were excluded because they met the other steps of the Field Triage Decision Scheme. Of the remaining 9,483 cases, 2,363 met one of the mechanism of injury criteria, 204 (9%) of which needed the resources of a trauma center. Criteria with a +LR ≥5 were death of another occupant in the same vehicle (6.8; CI:2.7–16.7), fall >20 ft.(5.2; CI:2.4–11.3), and motor vehicle crash (MVC) extrication >20 minutes (5.0; CI:3.2–8.0). Criteria with a +LR between 2 and <5 were intrusion >12 inches (3.7; CI:2.6–5.3), ejection (3.2; CI:1.3–8.2), and deformity >20 inches (2.3; CI:1.7–3.0). The criteria with a +LR <2 were MVC speed >40 mph (1.9; CI:1.5–2.2), pedestrian/bicyclist struck >5mph (1.2; CI:1.0–1.5), bicyclist/pedestrian thrown or run over (1.2; CI:0.9–1.6), motorcycle crash >20mph (1.1; CI:0.96–1.3), rider separated from motorcycle (1.0; CI:0.9–1.2), and MVC rollover (1.0; CI:0.7–1.5). Conclusion Death of another occupant, fall distance, and extrication time were good predictors of trauma center need when a patient did not meet the anatomic or physiologic conditions. Intrusion, ejection, and vehicle deformity were moderate predictors.