Can Fire and Rescue Services and the National Health Service work together to improve the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable older people? Design of a proof of concept study

Older adults are at increased risk both of falling and of experiencing accidental domestic fire. In addition to advanced age, these adverse events share the risk factors of balance or mobility problems, cognitive impairment and socioeconomic deprivation. For both events, the consequences include significant injury and death, and considerable socioeconomic costs for the individual and informal carers, as well as for emergency services, health and social care agencies.Secondary prevention services for older people who have fallen or who are identifiable as being at high risk of falling include NHS Falls clinics, where a multidisciplinary team offers an individualised multifactorial targeted intervention including strength and balance exercise programmes, medication changes and home hazard modification. A similar preventative approach is employed by most Fire and Rescue Services who conduct Home Fire Safety Visits to assess and, if necessary, remedy domestic fire risk, fit free smoke alarms with instruction for use and maintenance, and plan an escape route. We propose that the similarity of population at risk, location, specific risk factors and the commonality of preventative approaches employed could offer net gains in terms of feasibility, effectiveness and acceptability if activities within these two preventative approaches were to be combined

Evaluating emergency medical service performance measures

Discrete optimization, Emergency medical service, Patient outcomes, Performance measures, Health policy modeling,

Cost-effectiveness of Automated External Defibrillator Deployment in Selected Public Locations

The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends an automated external defibrillator (AED) be considered for a specific location if there is at least a 20% annual probability the device will be used. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the AHA recommendation and of AED deployment in selected public locations with known cardiac arrest rates. DESIGN: Markov Decision Model employing a societal perspective. SETTING: Selected public locations in the United States. PATIENTS: A simulated cohort of the American public. INTERVENTION: Strategy 1: individuals experiencing cardiac arrest were treated by emergency medical services equipped with AEDs (EMS-D). Strategy 2: individuals were treated with AEDs deployed as part of a public access defibrillation program. Strategies differed only in the initial availability of an AED and its impact on cardiac arrest survival. RESULTS: Under the base-case assumption that a deployed AED will be used on 1 cardiac arrest every 5 years (20% annual probability of AED use), the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained is $30,000 for AED deployment compared with EMS-D care. AED deployment costs less than$50,000 per QALY gained provided that the annual probability of AED use is 12% or greater. Monte Carlo simulation conducted while holding the annual probability of AED use at 20% demonstrated that 87% of the trials had a cost-effectiveness ratio of less than $50,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: AED deployment is likely to be cost-effective across a range of public locations. The current AHA guidelines are overly restrictive. Limited expansion of these programs can be justified on clinical and economic grounds.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72546/1/j.1525-1497.2003.21139.x.pd