Purpose: Delays in emergency medical service (EMS) directly affect life-threatening emergencies. Delays also indirectly affect the perception and satisfaction of patients and their relatives, which are important qualitative EMS indicators. Patients and Methods: For this cross-sectional study, data was collected from May 1 to July 31, 2021, through questionnaires developed by the authors. The study sample consisted of relatives of EMS patients. The primary objective was the perceived EMS response time, which was compared to the actual EMS response time. The secondary objective was the relatives' perceptions and feelings regarding the waiting time. Results: During study period, the sample was 165 relatives of patients managed by EMS. The mean perceived EMS response time of 18.28 ± 8.10 min was significantly longer than the mean actual response time of 14.44 ± 4.86 min (p < 0.001). The positive correlation between the perceived and actual times was low but statistically significant (p < 0.001) with a correlation coefficient of 0.315 (95% CI 0.170-0.446). The overall satisfaction level was high (, standard deviation 0.63). The mean perceived EMS response time compares with the high-to-highest satisfaction levels of relatives was significantly lower than the mean perceived EMS response time compares with the lowest-to-middle satisfaction levels of relatives (17.83 ± 8.05 and 22.50 ± 7.47 min, respectively; p = 0.028). Conclusion: The perceived EMS response time was longer than the actual response time, with a low correlation. However, the relatives' overall satisfaction level was high.
Purpose: Delays in emergency medical service (EMS) directly affect life-threatening emergencies. Delays also indirectly affect the perception and satisfaction of patients and their relatives, which are important qualitative EMS indicators. Patients and Methods: For this cross-sectional study, data was collected from May 1 to July 31, 2021, through questionnaires developed by the authors. The study sample consisted of relatives of EMS patients. The primary objective was the perceived EMS response time, which was compared to the actual EMS response time. The secondary objective was the relatives' perceptions and feelings regarding the waiting time. Results: During study period, the sample was 165 relatives of patients managed by EMS. The mean perceived EMS response time of 18.28 ± 8.10 min was significantly longer than the mean actual response time of 14.44 ± 4.86 min (p < 0.001). The positive correlation between the perceived and actual times was low but statistically significant (p < 0.001) with a correlation coefficient of 0.315 (95% CI 0.170-0.446). The overall satisfaction level was high (, standard deviation 0.63). The mean perceived EMS response time compares with the high-to-highest satisfaction levels of relatives was significantly lower than the mean perceived EMS response time compares with the lowest-to-middle satisfaction levels of relatives (17.83 ± 8.05 and 22.50 ± 7.47 min, respectively; p = 0.028). Conclusion: The perceived EMS response time was longer than the actual response time, with a low correlation. However, the relatives' overall satisfaction level was high.
Authors: Eric Lucas Dos Santos Cabral; Wilkson Ricardo Silva Castro; Davidson Rogério de Medeiros Florentino; Danylo de Araújo Viana; João Florêncio da Costa Junior; Ricardo Pires de Souza; Amália Cinthia Meneses Rêgo; Irami Araújo-Filho; Aldo Cunha Medeiros Journal: Acta Cir Bras Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 1.388