Scoop and treat: from an historical controversy to the emergency future

Abstract

Within the intricate narrative of emergency medical services (EMS), there lies a rich and evolving history of innovation and strategy, a saga that weaves through the fabric of prehospital emergency care. At the heart of this narrative is a compelling dichotomy, often whimsically encapsulated as the “stay and play” vs. “scoop and run” philosophies. These seemingly polar approaches to emergency care represent a tapestry of diverse opinions and practices, each tailored to its unique environmental context, clinical demands, and the relative availability of prehospital and hospital resources. Our comprehensive review delves into the historical evolution of these notions, tracing their roots from the ancient world to the present day. We cast a particular focus on the French model of “prehospital medicalization” and the Anglophone “Scoop and Run” approach, exploring their distinct trajectories and influences. Additionally, we turn our gaze to the Israeli system, a unique hybrid shaped by the American prehospital framework yet distinctively molded by the region's enduring conflict. By drawing on an array of interviews, historical records, and scholarly discourse, this document presents an in-depth exploration of the development of prehospital emergency medicine and its pivotal role in contemporary healthcare. Through this investigation, we aim to elucidate the historical tensions surrounding these concepts, shedding light on their implications for the landscape of modern emergency medical services and the intricate web of factors that shape their organization.

Social mass gathering events influence emergency medical services call volume

“…Another important point is the generalizability of our findings. EMS systems and the capabilities of prehospital resources differ around the world, which might also influence the strain an event poses for ambulance resources ( 12 ). In physician-based systems, a single critical case may result in at least two vehicles responding, as doctors commonly work in liaison systems using independent response cars, which cannot transport patients ( 12 ).…”

“…EMS systems and the capabilities of prehospital resources differ around the world, which might also influence the strain an event poses for ambulance resources ( 12 ). In physician-based systems, a single critical case may result in at least two vehicles responding, as doctors commonly work in liaison systems using independent response cars, which cannot transport patients ( 12 ). The consequence is that the number of ambulance missions increases with the acuity of patients, which was not the case in this study ( 12 ).…”

“…Prior data showed that prehospital systems greatly differ globally ( 12 ). This includes the number of ambulances available for a given number of citizens, the capabilities of the units dispatched (e.g., basic or advanced life support ambulances), and the clinicians’ expertise.…”

“…This includes the number of ambulances available for a given number of citizens, the capabilities of the units dispatched (e.g., basic or advanced life support ambulances), and the clinicians’ expertise. While paramedics treat critical patients autonomously in many Anglo-Saxon countries, central Europe relies on EMS physicians for those who are severely ill ( 12 ). These factors must be considered when conceptualizing medical care for an event.…”