Telemedical Direction to Optimize Resource Utilization in a Rural Emergency Medical Services System

Background: Telemedicine remains an underused tool in rural emergency medical servces (EMS) systems. Rural emergency medical technicians (EMT) and paramedics cite concerns that telemedicine could increase Advanced Life Support (ALS) transports, extend on-scene times, and face challenges related to connectivity as barriers to implementation. Our aim in this project was to implement a telemedicine system in a rural EMS setting and assess the impact of telemedicine on EMS management of patients with chest pain while evaluating some of the perceived barriers. Methods: This study was a mixed-methods, retrospective review of quality assurance data collected prior to and after implementation of a telemedicine program targeting patients with chest pain. We compared quantitative data from the 12-month pre-implementation phase to data from 15 months post-implementation. Patients were included if they had a chief complaint of chest pain or a 12-lead electrocardiogram had been obtained. The primary outcome was the rate of ALS transport before and after program implementation. Secondary outcomes included EMS call response times and EMS agency performance on quality improvement benchmarks. Qualitative data were also collected after each telemedicine encounter to evaluate paramedic/EMT and EMS physician perception of call quality. Results: The telemedicine pilot project was implemented in September 2020. Overall, there were 58 successful encounters. For this analysis, we included 38 patients in both the pre-implementation period (September 9, 2019–September 10, 2020) and the post-implementation period (September 11, 2020–December 5, 2021). Among this population, the ALS transport rate was 42% before and 45% after implementation (odds ratio 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.45–2.76). The EMS median out-of-service times were 47 minutes before, and 33 minutes after (P = 0.07). Overall, 64% of paramedics/EMTs and 89% of EMS physicians rated the telemedicine call quality as “good.” Conclusion: In this rural EMS system, a telehealth platform was successfully used to connect paramedics/EMTs to board-certified EMS physicians over a 15-month period. Telemedicine use did not alter rates of ALS transports and did not increase on-scene time. The majority of paramedics/EMTs and EMS physicians rated the quality of the telemedicine connection as “good.

A Comprehensive Framework for Determining the Cost of an Emergency Medical Services System

To determine the cost of an emergency medical services (EMS) system, researchers, policymakers, and EMS providers need a framework with which to identify the components of the system that must be included in any cost calculations. Such a framework will allow for cost comparisons across studies, communities, and interventions. The objective of this article is to present an EMS cost framework. This framework was developed by a consensus panel after analysis of existing peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed resources, as well as independent expert input. The components of the framework include administrative overhead, bystander response, communications, equipment, human resources, information systems, medical oversight, physical plant, training, and vehicles. There is no hierarchical rank to these components; they are all necessary. Within each component, there are subcomponents that must be considered. This framework can be used to standardize the calculation of EMS system costs to a community. Standardizing the calculation of EMS cost will allow for comparisons of costs between studies, communities, and interventions. © 2007 American College of Emergency Physicians

An Economic Toolkit for Identifying the Cost of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Systems: Detailed Methodology of the EMS Cost Analysis Project (EMSCAP)

Calculating the cost of an emergency medical services (EMS) system using a standardized method is important for determining the value of EMS. This article describes the development of a methodology for calculating the cost of an EMS system to its community. This includes a tool for calculating the cost of EMS (the “cost workbook”) and detailed directions for determining cost (the “cost guide”). The 12‐step process that was developed is consistent with current theories of health economics, applicable to prehospital care, flexible enough to be used in varying sizes and types of EMS systems, and comprehensive enough to provide meaningful conclusions. It was developed by an expert panel (the EMS Cost Analysis Project [EMSCAP] investigator team) in an iterative process that included pilot testing the process in three diverse communities. The iterative process allowed ongoing modification of the toolkit during the development phase, based upon direct, practical, ongoing interaction with the EMS systems that were using the toolkit. The resulting methodology estimates EMS system costs within a user‐defined community, allowing either the number of patients treated or the estimated number of lives saved by EMS to be assessed in light of the cost of those efforts. Much controversy exists about the cost of EMS and whether the resources spent for this purpose are justified. However, the existence of a validated toolkit that provides a standardized process will allow meaningful assessments and comparisons to be made and will supply objective information to inform EMS and community officials who are tasked with determining the utilization of scarce societal resources. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2012; 19:1–7 © 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency MedicinePeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90144/1/j.1553-2712.2011.01277.x.pd

Physician In-field Observation of Prehospital Advanced Life Support Personnel: A Statewide Evaluation

AbstractStudy Hypothesis:Direct physician observation of advanced life support (ALS) personnel is rare in a demographically diverse state.Study Population:Twenty ALS agencies from throughout Arizona.Methods:A board-certified emergency physician performed on-site interviews with the emergency medical services (EMS) supervisor of each agency to approximate the number of days per year that physicians observe ALS personnel in the field.Results:Only 11 agencies (55%) reported that physicians ever observed ALS personnel. Among all agencies, an estimated total of 84 observer-days occurred per year. The agencies staffed a total of 86 ALS units, resulting in an estimated 0.98 observer-days/unit/year (84/86). On the average, it took 3.4 ALS personnel to staff a given unit over time and the probability that an ALS provider would be on a unit on any given day was 0.29 (1/3.4). The probability of a given provider being observed during one year was approximately 0.29 (0.98 x 0.29). Thus, on the average, an ALS provider would be observed by a physician approximately once every 3.5 years (1/0.29). Among urban agencies, the “average” ALS provider would be observed once every 2.9 years. This compared to a likelihood of in-field observation of only once every 6.7 years for non-urban providers (p = .036).Conclusions:The skills of ALS providers in Arizona are observed by a physician in the field very infrequently. Although an uncommon occurrence in urban agencies, observation of non-urban ALS personnel occurs even less frequently. In addition, nearly one-half of the agencies surveyed never had a physician-observer. Although a variety of skills evaluation methods exist, it remains unclear whether any method is as useful as direct observation. Future investigations are needed to evaluate whether in-field physician observation impacts skills, patient care, or outcome in EMS systems.</jats:sec

Barriers to EMS System Evaluation: Problems Associated with Field Data Collection

For more than two decades, emergency medical services (EMS) systems have proliferated primarily based upon governmental impetus and funding at the federal, state, and local levels. Although many of the foundations of patient care rendered in these systems have been based upon intuitive logic, the understanding of the impact on patient outcome is poor, at best. The reasons for the current status are varied, but five issues are preeminent:1) The authority for the development of these medical systems has been based primarily in political and bureaucratic institutions which have little or no medical expertise;2) Little attention has been paid to system evaluation, particularly in the area of cost-effectiveness;3) Few academic medical institutions have become involved in EMS research;4) Traditional approaches to medical research primarily are disease-specific and are not multidisciplinary. Thus these are not useful for evaluating and understanding the highly complex and uncontrolled environmental interactions that typify EMS systems; and5) The process of efficiently and reliably collecting accurate data in the prehospital setting is extremely difficult.</jats:p