Search Results (2)

Objective: Most traffic research on emergency medical services (EMS) focuses on investigating the time saved with emergency response driving. Evidence regarding driving speed during non-urgent ambulance missions is lacking. In contrast, this descriptive study compared registered driving speeds to the road speed limit in urgent A-missions and non-urgent D-missions. Specifically, the study examined driving speeds during normal speed limits, periods of reduced winter speed limits, and speeding during non-urgent D-missions. Methods: Urgent A-missions and non-urgent D-missions were included. Registered ambulance locations and speed data from Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Finland between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018 were used. Ambulance locations were linked to OpenStreetMap digital road network data. The registered driving speed distribution was reported as quartiles by the effective road speed limit. Furthermore, the results during the normal speed limit and reduced winter speed limit periods were reported separately. Driving speeds in non-urgent missions were compared with current Finnish traffic violation legislation. Results: As expected, the urgent A-missions exceeded the speed limits during both the normal speed limit and reduced winter speed limit periods. On the smallest streets with speed limits of 30 km/h, the driving speeds in urgent missions were lower than the speed limit. The driving speeds in non-urgent D-missions were broadly similar throughout the whole year on high-speed roads, and mostly on lower speed limit roads. However, within the 30 km/h speed limits, the mean speed in non-urgent missions appeared to increase during the winter. One-fifth of the registered non-urgent D-missions were speeding. Conclusions: Speeding is common in urgent A-missions and non-urgent D-missions throughout the year. Stricter guidelines for EMS are needed to increase driving safety. Full article

The purpose of this study was to explore differences in characteristics of missions dispatched by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) between rural and urban areas of Riyadh province in Saudi Arabia (SA). It also aimed at identifying weaknesses related to utilization and Response Time (RT). The study retrospectively evaluated 146,639 completed missions in 2018 by measuring the utilization rate in rural and urban areas. The study shows there are six times more ambulance crews available for rural areas compared to urban. There were 22.1 missions per 1000 urban inhabitants and 11.2 missions per 1000 in rural areas. The median RT for high urgent trauma cases was 20.2 min in rural compared to 15.2 min in urban areas (p < 0.001). In urban areas, the median RT for high urgent medical cases was 16.1 min, while it was 15.2 min for high urgent trauma cases. Around 62.3% of emergency cases in urban and 56.5% in rural areas were responded to within 20.00 min. Women utilized EMS less frequently. The RT was increased in urban areas compared to previous studies. The RT in the central region of SA has been identified as equal, or less than 20.00 min in 62.4% of all emergency cases. To further improve adherence to the 20′ target, reorganizing the lowest urgent cases in the rural areas seems necessary. Full article