According to the World Health Organization Emergency Response Framework, from 2001- 2010 an average of more than 700 natural and technological emergencies occur globally every year, affecting approximately 270 million people and causing over 130,000 deaths annually (p.9). The availability of emergency medical services (EMS) throughout the world varies due to each country’s government, size, population, culture, gross to domestic product, terrain, and adopted EMS delivery models. Consequently, the poorest and most vulnerable people often have little to no access to EMS. Despite the United States being one of the richest countries in the world, the current EMS system as its faults. When looking at the United States EMS system and prehospital
…show more content…
This method provides the patient with a hospital level of care without actually going to the hospital. If a patient does need to be transported, the physician will continue to provide advanced medical care while in route to the hospital. Frequently, transported patients are often directly admitted to the hospital ward by-passing the hospital emergency department. The physicians that work under this model have an extensive medical background with a core specialty training; this must be earned before emergency medicine training and certification being obtained. Some countries that utilize this model include France Germany Switzerland Greece, Malta, and Austria (Tintinalli, Cameron, & Holliman, …show more content…
One standard that has been adopted for all patients is the eight-minute response time. This response time has been derived from the importance of providing early defibrillation to cardiac patients. To achieve an eight-minute response time, EMS providers must use travel using lights and sirens or what is known as going “code three.” However, the majority of EMS calls are not for traumatic injuries or cardiovascular disease, therefore do not necessarily require a rapid response. To meet this stringent requirement, a significant number of paramedics and ambulances are needed as well as a significant capital investment. Additionally, going code 3 to meet this response standard places the responders and citizens at unnecessary risk for motor vehicle collisions. Currently, the EMS system is beginning to acknowledge that the majority of patients do not require code three response. Published research is showing longer response times are sufficient, and new policies are slowly changing this requirement (Shah, 2006). However, because the EMS system was developed on a worst-case scenario, policymakers have to demonstrate this response time does not apply to all patients and needlessly endangers the community. This risk could be reduced through more stringent triage similar to the
This method provides the patient with a hospital level of care without actually going to the hospital. If a patient does need to be transported, the physician will continue to provide advanced medical care while in route to the hospital. Frequently, transported patients are often directly admitted to the hospital ward by-passing the hospital emergency department. The physicians that work under this model have an extensive medical background with a core specialty training; this must be earned before emergency medicine training and certification being obtained. Some countries that utilize this model include France Germany Switzerland Greece, Malta, and Austria (Tintinalli, Cameron, & Holliman, …show more content…
One standard that has been adopted for all patients is the eight-minute response time. This response time has been derived from the importance of providing early defibrillation to cardiac patients. To achieve an eight-minute response time, EMS providers must use travel using lights and sirens or what is known as going “code three.” However, the majority of EMS calls are not for traumatic injuries or cardiovascular disease, therefore do not necessarily require a rapid response. To meet this stringent requirement, a significant number of paramedics and ambulances are needed as well as a significant capital investment. Additionally, going code 3 to meet this response standard places the responders and citizens at unnecessary risk for motor vehicle collisions. Currently, the EMS system is beginning to acknowledge that the majority of patients do not require code three response. Published research is showing longer response times are sufficient, and new policies are slowly changing this requirement (Shah, 2006). However, because the EMS system was developed on a worst-case scenario, policymakers have to demonstrate this response time does not apply to all patients and needlessly endangers the community. This risk could be reduced through more stringent triage similar to the