L H Brown1, C L Whitney, R C Hunt, M Addario, T Hogue. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, State University of New York Health Science Center at Syracuse, 13210, USA. brownl@mailbox.hscsyr.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the time saving associated with lights and siren (L&S) use during emergency response in an urban EMS system. METHODS: This prospective study evaluated ambulance response times from the location at time of dispatch to the scene of an emergency in an urban area. A control group of responses using L&S was compared with an experimental group that did not use L&S. An observer was assigned to ride along with ambulance crews and record actual times for all L&S responses. At a later date, an observer and an off-duty paramedic in an identical ambulance retraced the route--at the same time of day on the same day of the week--without using L&S and recorded the travel time. Response times for the two groups were compared using paired t-test. RESULTS: The 32 responses with L&S averaged 105.8 seconds (1 minute, 46 seconds) faster than those without (95% confidence interval: 60.2 to 151.5 seconds, p = 0.0001). The time difference ranged from 425 seconds (7 minutes, 5 seconds) faster with L&S to 210 seconds (3 minutes, 30 seconds) slower with L&S. CONCLUSION: In this urban EMS system, L&S reduce ambulance response times by an average of 1 minute, 46 seconds. Although statistically significant, this time saving is likely to be clinically relevant in only a very few cases. A large-scale multicenter L&S trial may help address this issue on a national level.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the time saving associated with lights and siren (L&S) use during emergency response in an urban EMS system. METHODS: This prospective study evaluated ambulance response times from the location at time of dispatch to the scene of an emergency in an urban area. A control group of responses using L&S was compared with an experimental group that did not use L&S. An observer was assigned to ride along with ambulance crews and record actual times for all L&S responses. At a later date, an observer and an off-duty paramedic in an identical ambulance retraced the route--at the same time of day on the same day of the week--without using L&S and recorded the travel time. Response times for the two groups were compared using paired t-test. RESULTS: The 32 responses with L&S averaged 105.8 seconds (1 minute, 46 seconds) faster than those without (95% confidence interval: 60.2 to 151.5 seconds, p = 0.0001). The time difference ranged from 425 seconds (7 minutes, 5 seconds) faster with L&S to 210 seconds (3 minutes, 30 seconds) slower with L&S. CONCLUSION: In this urban EMS system, L&S reduce ambulance response times by an average of 1 minute, 46 seconds. Although statistically significant, this time saving is likely to be clinically relevant in only a very few cases. A large-scale multicenter L&S trial may help address this issue on a national level.
Authors: Mohd Shaharudin Shah Che Hamzah; Rashidi Ahmad; Nik Hisamuddin Nik Abdul Rahman; Kasmah Wati Pardi; Naimah Jaafar; Wan Aasim Wan Adnan; Kamaruddin Jaalam; Syed Mohsin Sahil Jamalullail Journal: Malays J Med Sci Date: 2005-07
Authors: Ross J Fleischman; Mark Lundquist; Jonathan Jui; Craig D Newgard; Craig Warden Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 3.077