Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco.
JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Nov 2;1(7):e185202. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.5202.
Emergency medical services (EMS) provide critical prehospital care, and disparities in response times to time-sensitive conditions, such as cardiac arrest, may contribute to disparities in patient outcomes.
To investigate whether ambulance 9-1-1 times were longer in low-income vs high-income areas and to compare response times with national benchmarks of 4, 8, or 15 minutes across income quartiles.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed of the 2014 National Emergency Medical Services Information System data in June 2017 using negative binomial and logistic regressions to examine the association between zip code-level income and EMS response times. The study used ambulance 9-1-1 response data for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from 46 of 50 state repositories (92.0%) in the United States. The sample included 63 600 cardiac arrest encounters of patients who did not die on scene and were transported to the hospital.
Four time measures were examined, including response time, on-scene time, transport time, and total EMS time. The study compared response times with EMS response time benchmarks for responding to cardiac arrest calls within 4, 8, and 15 minutes.
The study sample included 63 600 cardiac arrest encounters of patients (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [19.0] years; 57.9% male), with 37 550 patients (59.0%) from high-income areas and 8192 patients (12.9%) from low-income areas. High-income areas had greater proportions of white patients (70.1% vs 62.2%), male patients (58.8% vs 54.1%), privately insured patients (29.4% vs 15.9%), and uninsured patients (15.3% vs 7.9%), while low-income areas had a greater proportion of Medicaid-insured patients (38.3% vs 15.8%). The mean (SD) total EMS time was 37.5 (13.6) minutes in the highest zip code income quartile and 43.0 (18.8) minutes in the lowest. After controlling for urban zip code, weekday, and time of day in regression analyses, total EMS time remained 10% longer (95% CI, 9%-11%; P < .001), translating to 3.8 minutes longer in the poorest zip codes. The EMS response time to patients in high-income zip codes was more likely to meet 8-minute and 15-minute cutoffs compared with low-income zip codes.
Patients with cardiac arrest from the poorest neighborhoods had longer EMS times compared with those from the wealthiest, and response times were less likely to meet national benchmarks in low-income areas, which may lead to increased disparities in prehospital delivery of care over time.
紧急医疗服务(EMS)提供关键的院前护理,而对时间敏感的情况(如心脏骤停)的响应时间存在差异,可能导致患者预后存在差异。
调查低收入地区与高收入地区的救护车 9-1-1 响应时间是否更长,并比较收入四分位数中 4、8 或 15 分钟的响应时间与国家基准。
设计、地点和参与者: 2017 年 6 月,对 2014 年国家紧急医疗服务信息系统数据进行了回顾性横断面研究,采用负二项和逻辑回归分析,研究了邮政编码收入与 EMS 响应时间之间的关系。该研究使用了美国 50 个州中 46 个(92.0%)的州存储库的院外心脏骤停的救护车 9-1-1 响应数据。样本包括 63600 名未在现场死亡并被送往医院的心脏骤停患者的遭遇。
检查了四个时间指标,包括响应时间、现场时间、运输时间和 EMS 总时间。该研究将响应时间与 EMS 对心脏骤停呼叫的响应时间基准进行了比较,基准为在 4、8 和 15 分钟内响应。
该研究样本包括 63600 名心脏骤停患者的遭遇(平均[标准差]年龄为 60.6[19.0]岁;57.9%为男性),其中 37550 名(59.0%)来自高收入地区,8192 名(12.9%)来自低收入地区。高收入地区的白人患者比例较高(70.1%比 62.2%),男性患者比例较高(58.8%比 54.1%),私人保险患者比例较高(29.4%比 15.9%),无保险患者比例较高(15.3%比 7.9%),而低收入地区的医疗补助保险患者比例较高(38.3%比 15.8%)。最高邮政编码收入四分位数的 EMS 总时间平均(标准差)为 37.5(13.6)分钟,最低的为 43.0(18.8)分钟。在回归分析中控制城市邮政编码、工作日和一天中的时间后,EMS 总时间仍然延长了 10%(95%CI,9%-11%;P<0.001),在最贫困的邮政编码中,EMS 时间延长了 3.8 分钟。来自高收入邮政编码的患者的 EMS 响应时间更有可能达到 8 分钟和 15 分钟的截止时间,而不是来自低收入邮政编码的患者。
来自最贫困社区的心脏骤停患者的 EMS 时间比来自最富裕社区的患者长,并且响应时间不太可能达到低收入地区的国家基准,这可能导致随着时间的推移,院前护理的提供存在更大的差异。