Abstract
EMS clinicians respond to calls in multiple types of vehicles, including ground ambulances,
fixed-wing air ambulances, and rotor-wing air ambulances. Each type of vehicle serves
a specific role within the overall EMS system and, based on differences in capabilities
and operating costs, likely responds to patients with different clinical needs and
acuities. For example, rotor-wing air ambulances are often utilized to transport high-acuity
patients significant distances in less time than a ground ambulance and are staffed
with highly-trained providers. To better understand the correlation between EMS vehicle
type and patient acuity, we examined the National Emergency Medical Services Information
System (NEMSIS) database to identify what percentage of calls involve high-acuity,
medium-acuity, and low-acuity patients within three EMS vehicle types. Acuity was
determined by provider impression. Of the 53,193,098 calls that were included for
analysis, 99.14% involved ground ambulances, 0.75% involved rotor-wing air ambulances,
and 0.11% involved fixed-wing air ambulances. Rotor-wing air ambulances received the
greatest share of high-acuity patients (47.60%), followed by fixed-wing air ambulances
(30.15%) and ground ambulances (3.85%). This trend was reversed for low-acuity patients:
ground ambulances responded to the highest percentage of low-acuity patients (72.70%),
followed by fixed-wing air ambulances (10.69%) and rotor-wing air ambulances (4.47%).
These data suggest that air ambulances – both fixed-wing and rotor-wing – mostly respond
to patients that providers determine to be medium-acuity or high-acuity, while a majority
of calls ground ambulances respond to involve patients determined to be low-acuity.
The fact that aeromedical EMS resources are predominantly being used for medium- and
high-acuity patients is reassuring, because it suggests they are being effectively
deployed. Further research should examine how EMS providers determine patient acuity
and see if the trends we identified remain constant or fluctuate.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Air Medical JournalAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Emergency medical services.in: Jamison DT Breman JG Measham AR Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC2006: 626-628
- Patient acuity: a concept analysis.J Adv Nurs. 2009; 65: 1114-1126
- EMS call volume predictions: a comparative study.Comput Oper Res. 2009; 36: 1843-1851
- When is the helicopter faster? A comparison of helicopter and ground ambulance transport times.J Trauma. 2005; 58: 148-153
- Helicopter air ambulance services.Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2019; 32: 252-256
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 18, 2020
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 Air Medical Journal Associates. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.