Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T09:42:17.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patient Outcome Using Medical Protocol to Limit “Lights and Siren” Transport

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Douglas F. Kupas ,
David J. Dula  and
Bruno J. Pino
Douglas F. Kupas*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pa.
David J. Dula
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pa.
Bruno J. Pino
Affiliation:
Citizens' Ambulance Service, Indiana, Pa.
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA 17822, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Emergency medical services vehicle collisions (EMVCs) associated with the use of warning “lights and siren” (L&S) are responsible for injuries and death to emergency medical services (EMS) personnel and patients. This study examines patient outcome when medical protocol directs L&S transport.

Design:

During four months, all EMS calls initiated as an emergency request for service and culminating in transport to an emergency department (ED) were included. Medical criteria determined emergent (L&S) versus non-emergent transport. Patients with worsened conditions, as reported by EMS providers, were reviewed.

Setting:

Countywide suburban/rural EMS system.

Results:

Ninety-two percent (1,495 of 1,625) of patients were transported non-emergently. Thirteen (1%) of these were reported to have worsened during transport, and none of them suffered any worsened outcome related to the non-L&S transport.

Conclusion:

This medical protocol directing the use of warning L&S during patient transport results in infrequent L&S transport. In this study, no adverse outcomes were found related to non-L&S transports.

Keywords

advanced life supportbasic life supportemergency medical servicesemergency medical vehicle collisionsoutcomepatient transportprotocolswarning lights and siren
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 226 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Elling, R: Dispelling myths on ambulance accidents. JEMS 1989;14:60–64.Google ScholarPubMed
2. Clawson, JJ: Running “hot” and the case of Sharon Rose. JEMS 1991;16:11–13.Google Scholar
3. Auerbach, PS, Morris, JJ, Phillips, JB Jr, et al. : An analysis of ambulance accidents in Tennessee. JAMA 1987;258:1487–1490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. George, JE, Qnattrone, MS: Above all—Do no harm. Emerg Med Tech Legal Bull 1991;15:4.Google Scholar
5. Leonard, WH: EMS system failure. The Cold Cross 1991;11–13.Google Scholar
6. Bickell, WH, Sacra, JC, Thompson, CT: Prospective evaluation of field trauma triage. Ann Emerg Med 1993;22:919. Abstract.Google Scholar
7. National Association of EMS Physicians, Emergency Medical Response Task Force: Use of warning lights and siren in emergency medical vehicle response and patient transport. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1994;9:133–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar