OBJECTIVES: The need for shared definitions and evidence based quality-indicators is widely perceived among Emergency Medical Services (EMS). In the region Friuli Venezia Giulia (FVG), Italy, both an EMS and a data collection system were established several years ago, but a comprehensive assessment of their quality had never been attempted and is the purpose of this study. DESIGN: Analysis of data regarding EMS emergency activities in the period January - September 2009. The quality indicators proposed by the national project entitled «Progetto Mattoni» were used. SETTING: 79 915 records were included, corresponding to 68 340 calls, 78 158 missions, 50 168 patients. RESULTS: The database has poor accuracy and accessibility. Only 20/64 indicators could be applied. Some of their definitions limit the applicability and/or reproducibility. The distribution of resources among the 4 operative centres of the region is uneven, as well as their performances in terms of call-to arrival interval. The standard recommended by the national guidelines for urban areas (8 minutes) is respected in only 56%of cases.The rescue intervals are shorter in operative centers with more resources per capita. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable scope for improvement in both the data collection system and EMS.The indicators themselves should be partly revised.
OBJECTIVES: The need for shared definitions and evidence based quality-indicators is widely perceived among Emergency Medical Services (EMS). In the region Friuli Venezia Giulia (FVG), Italy, both an EMS and a data collection system were established several years ago, but a comprehensive assessment of their quality had never been attempted and is the purpose of this study. DESIGN: Analysis of data regarding EMS emergency activities in the period January - September 2009. The quality indicators proposed by the national project entitled «Progetto Mattoni» were used. SETTING: 79 915 records were included, corresponding to 68 340 calls, 78 158 missions, 50 168 patients. RESULTS: The database has poor accuracy and accessibility. Only 20/64 indicators could be applied. Some of their definitions limit the applicability and/or reproducibility. The distribution of resources among the 4 operative centres of the region is uneven, as well as their performances in terms of call-to arrival interval. The standard recommended by the national guidelines for urban areas (8 minutes) is respected in only 56%of cases.The rescue intervals are shorter in operative centers with more resources per capita. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable scope for improvement in both the data collection system and EMS.The indicators themselves should be partly revised.