Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:41:23.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the Implementation of an Advanced Life Support Quick Response Vehicle (QRV) in an Integrated Fire/EMS System Improve Patient Contact Response Time?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Dustin W. Anderson ,
Harinder S. Dhindsa ,
Wen Wan  and
David Salot
Dustin W. Anderson*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia USA
Harinder S. Dhindsa
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia USA
Wen Wan
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia USA
David Salot
Affiliation:
Colonial Heights Fire and EMS, Colonial Heights, Virginia USA
*
Correspondence: Dustin W. Anderson, MD, NREMTP Department of Emergency Medicine Virginia Commonwealth University 1250 East Marshall Street PO Box 980401 Richmond, Virginia 23298-0401 USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

The current Fire/Emergency Medical Services (EMS) model throughout the United States involves emergency vehicles which respond from a primary location (ie, firehouse or municipal facility) to emergency calls. Quick response vehicles (QRVs) have been used in various Fire/EMS systems; however, their effectiveness has never been studied.

Objectives

The goal of this study was to determine if patient response times would decrease by placing an Advanced Life Support (ALS) QRV in an integrated Fire/EMS system.

Methods

Response times from an integrated Fire/EMS system with an annual EMS call volume of 3,261 were evaluated over the three years prior to the implementation of this study. For a 2-month period, an ALS QRV staffed by a firefighter/paramedic responded to emergency calls during peak call volume hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. The staging of this vehicle was based on historical call volume percentages using respective geocodes as well as system requirements during multiple emergency dispatches.

Results

Prior to the study, the citywide average response time for the twelve months preceding was 5.44 minutes. During the study, the citywide average response time decreased to 4.09 minutes, resulting in a 27.62% reduction in patient response time.

Conclusion

The implementation of an ALS QRV in an integrated Fire/EMS system reduces patient response time. Having a QRV that is not staged continuously in a traditional fire station or municipal location reduces the time needed to reach patients. Also, using predictive models of historic call volume can aid Fire and EMS administrators in reduction of call response times.

AndersonDW , DhindsaHS , WanW , SalotD . Does the Implementation of an Advanced Life Support Quick Response Vehicle (QRV) in an Integrated Fire/EMS System Improve Patient Contact Response Time?Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(4):1 – 3.

Keywords

patient contact timequick response vehicleresponse time
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , August 2015 , pp. 382 - 384
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2015 

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. Daberkow, SG. Location and cost of ambulances serving a rural area. Health Serv Res. 1977;12(3):299-311.Google Scholar
2. Eisenberg, MS, Bergner, L, Hallstrom, A. Cardiac resuscitation in the community. Importance of rapid provision and implications for program planning. JAMA. 1979;241:1905-1907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Valenzuela, TD, Goldberg, J, Keeley, KT, Criss, EA. Computer modeling of emergency medical system performance. Ann Emerg Med. 1990;19(8):898-901.Google Scholar
4. Peters, J, Hall, GB. Assessment of ambulance response performance using a geographic information system. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(11):1551-1566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Peleg, K, Pliskin, JS. A geographic information system simulation model of EMS: reducing ambulance response time. Am J Emerg Med. 2004;22(3):164-170.Google Scholar
6. Lin, CS, Chang, H, Shyu, KG, et al. A method to reduce response times in prehospital care: the motorcycle experience. Am J Emerg Med. 1998;16(7):711-713.Google Scholar
7. Blackwell, TH, Kaufman, JS. Response time effectiveness: comparison of response time and survival in an urban EMS system. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9(4):288-295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Pons, PT, Markovchick, VJ. Eight minutes or less: does the ambulance response time guideline impact trauma patient outcome? J Emerg Med. 2002;23(1):43-48.Google Scholar
9. Pons, PT, Haukoos, JS, Bludworth, W, et al. Paramedic response time: does it affect patient survival? Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12(7):594-600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed