An analysis of cost and time for non-emergency calls: A retrospective study on the Emergency Medical Services resources management

Qawwas, Lutfiah Abdul-Aziz; Algaribi, Saud Ali; Haliq, Samer Al; Almufareh, Bandar; Almakhalas, Kharsan Mohammed

doi:10.5339/jemtac.2022.10

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This creates a situation where a certain amount of over-triage is necessary and acceptable to ensure that the patients receive immediate and proper response when needed. However, high rates of over-triage can be harmful for the EMS in numerous ways, leading to excessive costs, inappropriate use of resources [14], increased risk of ambulance crashes [15] and overfatigue of the EMS personnel [16]. To improve the quality of emergency dispatch, a new computer-assisted emergency dispatch system called Emergency Response Integrated Common Authorities (ERICA) was introduced in Finland in 2018 [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences between the dispatch priority assessments of emergency medical dispatchers and emergency medical services: a prospective register-based study in Finland

Salminen

Kaartinen

Roos

et al. 2023

Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Responsive and efficient emergency medical services (EMS) require accurate telephone triage. In Finland, such services are provided by Emergency Response Centre Agency (ERC Agency). In 2018, a new Finnish computer-assisted emergency dispatch system was introduced: the Emergency Response Integrated Common Authorities (ERICA). After the introduction of ERICA, the appropriateness of EMS dispatch has not been investigated yet. The study´s objective is to determine the consistency between the priority triage of the emergency medical dispatcher (EMD) and the on-scene priority assessment of the EMS, and whether the priority assessment consistency varied among the dispatch categories. Methods This was a prospective register-based study. All EMS dispatches registered in the Tampere University Hospital area from 1 August 2021 to 31 August 2021 were analysed. The EMD’s mission priority triaged during the emergency call was compared with the on-scene EMS’s assessment of the priority, derived from the pre-set criteria. The test performance levels were measured from the crosstabulation of true or false positive and negative values of the priority assessment. Statistical significance was analysed using the chi-square test and the Kruskal–Wallis H test, and p-values < 0.05 were considered significant. Results Of the 6416 EMS dispatches analysed in this study, 36% (2341) were urgent according to the EMD’s dispatch priority, and of these, only 29% (688) were urgent according to the EMS criteria. On the other hand, 64% (4075) of the dispatches were non-urgent according to the EMD’s dispatch priority, of which 97% (3949) were non-urgent according to the EMS criteria. Moreover, there were differences between the EMD and EMS priority assessments among the dispatch categories (p < 0.001). The overall efficiency was 72%, sensitivity 85%, specificity 71%, positive predictive value 29%, and negative predictive value 97%. Conclusion While the EMD recognised the non-urgent dispatches with high consistency with the EMS criteria, most of the EMD’s urgent dispatches were not urgent according to the same criteria. This may diminish the availability of the EMS for more urgent missions. Thus, measures are needed to ensure more accurate and therefore, more efficient use of EMS resources in the future.

show abstract