STUDY OBJECTIVE: To quantify use by geriatric patients of emergency medical services (EMS) compared with that by young adult patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, consecutive case series over a 6-month period in a suburban, all-paramedic municipal EMS system serving 76,500 residents, of whom approximately 15% are 65 years of age or older and 33% are between 25 and 45 years old. Patient age, the sole entry criterion, was used to distinguish two groups: the young adult group, defined as patients 25 to 45 years old; and the geriatric group, defined as patients 65 years or older. RESULTS: Of the 2,712 patients whose cases were reviewed during the study period, 1,734 (65%) met the entry criterion. The geriatric group (n=1,043) accounted for 39% of the total call volume, compared with the young adult group (n=690), which accounted for 25% of total call volume. Patients in the young adult group were 7.3 times more likely to have been in a motor vehicle accident, whereas the GP group was 2.6 times more likely to have cardiorespiratory complaints, 1.8 times more likely to have fallen, and 1.7 times more likely to have minor medical problems requiring transportation and more frequently required advanced life support (ALS) care (54% versus 33%) (P<.001 for all comparisons). Scene times for geriatric patients were found to be longer than those for young adults (ALS, P<.001; basic life support [BLS], P<.05). However, costs billed to the patient were greater for young adults for all care rendered (BLS, P<.001; ALS, P<.05). CONCLUSION: Use by geriatric patients of EMS differed significantly from that by young adults. Geriatric patients used EMS more frequently and required more ALS care than did young adults. Although geriatric patients required longer scene times for EMS care, young adults incurred greater charges for service. These findings, although perhaps system specific, speak to the need for ongoing analysis of EMS health care delivery to better serve a population increasing in age.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To quantify use by geriatric patients of emergency medical services (EMS) compared with that by young adult patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, consecutive case series over a 6-month period in a suburban, all-paramedic municipal EMS system serving 76,500 residents, of whom approximately 15% are 65 years of age or older and 33% are between 25 and 45 years old. Patient age, the sole entry criterion, was used to distinguish two groups: the young adult group, defined as patients 25 to 45 years old; and the geriatric group, defined as patients 65 years or older. RESULTS: Of the 2,712 patients whose cases were reviewed during the study period, 1,734 (65%) met the entry criterion. The geriatric group (n=1,043) accounted for 39% of the total call volume, compared with the young adult group (n=690), which accounted for 25% of total call volume. Patients in the young adult group were 7.3 times more likely to have been in a motor vehicle accident, whereas the GP group was 2.6 times more likely to have cardiorespiratory complaints, 1.8 times more likely to have fallen, and 1.7 times more likely to have minor medical problems requiring transportation and more frequently required advanced life support (ALS) care (54% versus 33%) (P<.001 for all comparisons). Scene times for geriatric patients were found to be longer than those for young adults (ALS, P<.001; basic life support [BLS], P<.05). However, costs billed to the patient were greater for young adults for all care rendered (BLS, P<.001; ALS, P<.05). CONCLUSION: Use by geriatric patients of EMS differed significantly from that by young adults. Geriatric patients used EMS more frequently and required more ALS care than did young adults. Although geriatric patients required longer scene times for EMS care, young adults incurred greater charges for service. These findings, although perhaps system specific, speak to the need for ongoing analysis of EMS health care delivery to better serve a population increasing in age.
Authors: Ross J Fleischman; K John McConnell; Annette L Adams; Jerris R Hedges; Craig D Newgard Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2010 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Hieu V Duong; Lauren Nicholas Herrera; Justin Xavier Moore; John Donnelly; Karen E Jacobson; Jestin N Carlson; N Clay Mann; Henry E Wang Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Akihisa Nakamura; Toshie Manabe; Hiroyuki Teraura; Kazuhiko Kotani Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 3.390