Literature DB >> 10634274

All-advanced life support vs tiered-response ambulance systems.

J Stout1, P E Pepe, V N Mosesso.   

Abstract

In this discussion, two principal types of ambulance deployment systems were compared and contrasted: 1) the multipurpose, sole-provider all-advanced life support (all-ALS) ambulance system in which all ambulance-related services (emergent and nonemergent) for a city or region are provided by one fleet of ambulances, each of which is staffed by ALS providers (paramedics); and 2) the tiered ambulance system (tiered) in which some 911 ambulances are staffed by paramedics and others are staffed by basic emergency medical technicians (EMT-Bs) who provide basic life support (BLS) care. When managed with advanced system status management (SSM) techniques, the multipurpose, sole-provider all-ALS ambulance system can significantly reduce response intervals while simultaneously providing both fiscal and operational efficiencies. It can also be used to readily integrate and expand the scope of services for the ambulance provider service, such as interfacility transfers, thus increasing revenues. On the other hand, in large urban centers, the tiered ambulance system can be used to reduce response intervals to critical calls, primarily through the use of sophisticated dispatch triage protocols. This approach requires fewer paramedics in the system and appears, in some systems, to also provide medical care advantages in terms of skills utilization for individual ALS providers as well as a more concentrated focus for medical supervision. Therefore, both of these deployment systems can offer certain advantages depending on local emergency medical services (EMS) system needs as well as the local philosophy of health care delivery. Applicability must therefore be considered in terms of local service demands and other factors that affect the EMS system, including catchment population, statutory and jurisdictional issues, available funding, accessibility of receiving facilities, and medical quality concerns.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10634274     DOI: 10.1080/10903120090941542

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care        ISSN: 1090-3127            Impact factor:   3.077


  6 in total

1.  Models of International Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Systems.

Authors:  Sultan Al-Shaqsi
Journal:  Oman Med J       Date:  2010-10

2.  Medical emergency team response for the non-hospitalized patient.

Authors:  Tracey A Dechert; Babak Sarani; Michelle McMaster; Seema Sonnad; Carrie Sims; José L Pascual; William D Schweickert
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 5.262

3.  Interactive effect of multi-tier response and advanced airway management on clinical outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a nationwide population-based observational study.

Authors:  Hyouk Jae Lim; Kyoung Jun Song; Sang Do Shin; Ki Hong Kim; Young Sun Ro; Hanna Yoon
Journal:  Clin Exp Emerg Med       Date:  2022-09-26

4.  Rationale and Strategies for Development of an Optimal Bundle of Management for Cardiac Arrest.

Authors:  Paul E Pepe; Tom P Aufderheide; Lionel Lamhaut; Daniel P Davis; Charles J Lick; Kees H Polderman; Kenneth A Scheppke; Charles D Deakin; Brian J O'Neil; Hans van Schuppen; Michael K Levy; Marvin A Wayne; Scott T Youngquist; Johanna C Moore; Keith G Lurie; Jason A Bartos; Kerry M Bachista; Michael J Jacobs; Carolina Rojas-Salvador; Sean T Grayson; James E Manning; Michael C Kurz; Guillaume Debaty; Nicolas Segal; Peter M Antevy; David A Miramontes; Sheldon Cheskes; Joseph E Holley; Ralph J Frascone; Raymond L Fowler; Demetris Yannopoulos
Journal:  Crit Care Explor       Date:  2020-10-15

Review 5.  Prehospital endotracheal intubation: elemental or detrimental?

Authors:  Paul E Pepe; Lynn P Roppolo; Raymond L Fowler
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2015-03-16       Impact factor: 9.097

6.  Two-Tiered Ambulance Dispatch and Redeployment considering Patient Severity Classification Errors.

Authors:  Seong Hyeon Park; Young Hoon Lee
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2019-12-09       Impact factor: 2.682

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.