Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T04:36:06.537Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Paramedic Intercepts with Basic Life Support Ambulance Services in Rural Minnesota

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Lucas A. Myers*
Affiliation:
Medical Transport, Rochester, Minnesota
Christopher S. Russi
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
Jeffery L. Schultz
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
*
NREMT-P Medical Transport Mayo Clinic 501 Sixth Avenue NW Rochester, Minnesota 55901 USA E-mail: myers.lucas3@mayo.edu

Abstract

Introduction:

In rural Minnesota, it is common for paramedics providing advanced life support (ALS) to rendezvous with ambulances providing only basic life support (BLS). These “intercepts” presumably allow for a higher level of care when patients have certain problems or need ALS interventions. The aim of this study was to review and understand the frequency of para-medic intercepts with regard to the actual care rendered and transport urgency (lights and sirens vs. none).

Methods:

All paramedic intercepts occurring between January 2003 and December 2007 for one multi-site emergency medical services (EMS) provider were reviewed for ALS interventions and treatments provided. In addition, the urgency of responses to the dispatch call or “intercept” and transport to a receiving facility were analyzed.

Results:

During the study period, 1,675 paramedic intercepts occurred and were reviewed. The ALS ambulances responded to the dispatch emergently (lights and sirens) in 97.5% of intercepts (1,633), but emergently transported only 24.2% of the patients (405). Paramedics performed no interventions above BLS levels in 11.6% (194) of the cases. Of the remaining 1,481 patients who received ALS interventions, 955 (64.4%) received no treatment or diagnostic testing other than electrocardiographic monitoring, intravenous access, or both.

Conclusions:

A significant discrepancy between emergent responses and actual ALS care rendered during intercept calls was demonstrated. Given the significant rate of EMS worker fatalities and transferable patient care costs, further study is needed to determine whether costs and safety are potentially improved by decreasing emergent responses. Future directions include developing or emulating Medical Priority Dispatch System triage protocols for advanced services providing intercepts. In addition, further study of patient outcomes between intercept and non-intercept cases is necessary.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Maguire, BJ, Hunting, KL, Smith, GS, Levick, NR: Occupational fatalities in emergency medical services: A hidden crisis. Ann Emerg Med 2002;40(6):625632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Maio, RF, Green, PE, Becker, MP, et al: Rural motor vehicle crash mortality: the role of crash severity and medical resources. Accid Anal Prev 1992;24(6):631642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Hunt, RC, Brown, LH, Cabinum, ES, et al: Is ambulance transport time with lights and siren faster than that without? Ann Emerg Med 1995;25(4):507511. Erratum in: Ann Emerg Med 1995;25(6):857.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Stratton, SJ: Triage by emergency medical dispatchers. Prehosp Disaster Med 1992;7(3).10.1017/S1049023X00039601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Zachariah, BS, Pepe, PE: The development of emergency medical dispatch in the USA: A historical perspective. European J Emerg Med 1995;2(3):109112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Hinchey, P, Myers, B, Zalkin, J, et al: Low acuity EMS dispatch criteria can reliably identify patients without high-acuity illness or injury. Prehosp Emerg Care 2007;11(1):4248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Cone, DC, Galante, N, MacMillan, DS: Can emergency medical dispatch systems safely reduce first-responder call volume? Prehosp Emerg Care 2008;12(4):479485 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Clawson, J, Olola, C, Heward, A, et al: Ability of the medical priority dispatch system protocol to predict the acuity of “unknown problem” dispatch response levels. Prehop Emerg Care 2008;12(3):290296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed