Neulander Matthew J., Siddiqui Daniyal I., Mountfort Steven
LSUHSC Shreveport
Aims Community College
At face value, prehospital emergency medical personnel's use of lights and sirens does not seem to be an area of high-value research or controversy. Drivers are all quite used to seeing emergency vehicles at work on the streets, lights flashing and sirens wailing. Both lights and sirens are, and for a long time, standard components of EMS vehicles. They are used both to decrease the time it takes emergency medical personnel to respond to the location of an accident, illness, or injury and the time it takes to transport the patient to a definitive care center. They are also used to keep medical providers safe while on the scene of an incident. The judicious and safe use of lights and sirens is a topic that has been well-researched recently, and how emergency medical service (EMS) providers use them has changed significantly over time. Their use presents quantifiable risks and benefits to EMS personnel and the public. Like any medical intervention, those risks and benefits must be thoughtfully considered and measured. This is to allow for the greatest safety for EMS providers and non-medical traffic and pedestrians, and the maximal benefit for the patients being transported for care. During the early years of EMS response, lights and sirens mirrored their use in the older and more established fire service. The typical thinking was that a fire could spread very quickly; the earlier firefighters arrived, the more likely lives and property could be spared. That logic was appropriate for EMS providers as well. The quicker a patient can be transported to a hospital, the higher the likelihood of a better outcome. Very early "ambulance drivers" were just that. They had little to no formal medical training and, in most instances, did not even travel with the patient in the vehicle's rear. Lights and sirens were used to get the patient to trained medical personnel as quickly as possible. Over the ensuing years, there began scrutiny of EMS protocols regarding the routine, unquestioned use of lights and sirens, looking at both the response phase of the call and the transport phase. As the training of EMS providers began and improved, EMS agencies rightfully started to see themselves as the prehospital adjunct to hospital-based emergency medicine. As such, they were subject to the same questioning of methods and research to evaluate those methods that emergency medicine physicians have come to expect and embrace. That research, performed mainly over the last 30 years, looked at emergency lights and sirens with specific questions: did they make EMS vehicles more conspicuous? Did they save time in EMS response and transport? Did the time make a difference in the medical outcome of the patient? These questions were asked and studied, all within the relative context of the risks that lights and sirens present to EMS workers and the public. Without evidence-based research, EMS providers' continued routine and unquestioned use of lights and sirens would be subject to time-honored and emotionally driven opinions by those who use them. The most deeply held belief is that using lights and sirens saves time and that time is paramount in medical emergencies. Indeed, medical professionals still teach the public and medical personnel at all training levels that "time is muscle/brain." There are expectations of the public that play a role as well, in that if their lights and sirens were not employed, then the EMS agency involved was not providing the urgency that a patient or family believes is warranted in their situation. Some would believe that the lights and sirens were a part of attracting new members to the job, and any decrease in their usage would damage recruiting. The companies that insure EMS agencies also played a role, believing that the routine use of lights and sirens made EMS vehicles and personnel safer, and their use was required for insurance purposes. If these views were to be questioned, protocols and attitudes toward using lights and sirens changed, then quality research was needed.
从表面上看,院前急救医疗人员对灯光和警笛的使用似乎并非高价值研究或争议领域。司机们都已习惯在街上看到执行任务的急救车辆,灯光闪烁,警笛呼啸。长期以来,灯光和警笛都是急救医疗服务(EMS)车辆的标准配置。它们既用于缩短急救医疗人员对事故、疾病或受伤地点做出响应的时间,也用于缩短将患者送往确定性护理中心的时间。它们还用于在事件现场保障医疗人员的安全。灯光和警笛的合理与安全使用是近期得到充分研究的一个话题,而且随着时间的推移,急救医疗服务(EMS)提供者对它们的使用方式已发生了显著变化。它们的使用给EMS人员和公众带来了可量化的风险和益处。与任何医疗干预一样,必须认真考虑和衡量这些风险和益处。这是为了确保EMS提供者以及非医疗交通和行人的最大安全,并为接受治疗运输的患者带来最大益处。在EMS响应的早期,灯光和警笛的使用效仿了历史更悠久、更成熟的消防服务。典型的想法是火灾可能迅速蔓延;消防员到达越早,挽救生命和财产的可能性就越大。这种逻辑对EMS提供者也适用。患者越快被送往医院,获得更好治疗结果 的可能性就越高。早期的“救护车司机”就是如此。他们几乎没有或根本没有接受过正规医疗培训,而且在大多数情况下,甚至都不与坐在车辆后排的患者同行。使用灯光和警笛是为了尽快将患者送到受过训练的医疗人员那里。在随后的几年里,人们开始审视EMS关于常规、不加质疑地使用灯光和警笛的协议,涵盖呼叫的响应阶段和运输阶段。随着EMS提供者培训的开始和改进,EMS机构理所当然地开始将自己视为医院急诊医学的院前辅助力量。因此,他们也受到了与急诊医学医生所期望和接受的相同的方法质疑以及对这些方法的研究。这项主要在过去30年进行的研究针对应急灯光和警笛提出了具体问题:它们是否使EMS车辆更显眼?它们是否节省了EMS响应和运输的时间?节省的时间对患者的医疗结果有影响吗?这些问题都在灯光和警笛给EMS工作者和公众带来的风险这一相关背景下被提出并进行了研究。如果没有基于证据的研究,EMS提供者对灯光和警笛的持续常规且不加质疑的使用将受到那些使用者由来已久且受情感驱动的观点的影响。最根深蒂固的信念是使用灯光和警笛能节省时间,而在医疗紧急情况中时间至关重要。事实上,医学专业人员仍在向公众和各级培训的医务人员传授“时间就是肌肉/大脑”。公众的期望也起到了一定作用,即如果不使用灯光和警笛,那么相关的EMS机构就没有提供患者或其家属认为在其情况下应有的紧迫感。有些人会认为灯光和警笛是吸引新成员加入这项工作的一部分,其使用的任何减少都会损害招募工作。为EMS机构提供保险的公司也起到了作用,他们认为常规使用灯光和警笛会使EMS车辆和人员更安全,并且出于保险目的需要使用它们。如果要对这些观点提出质疑,改变使用灯光和警笛的协议及态度,那么就需要高质量的研究。