Prehosp Emerg Care. 2020 Jul-Aug;24(4):557-565. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2019.1676346. Epub 2019 Nov 6.
Chest pain is a leading complaint in emergency settings. Timely emergency medical services (EMS) responses can reduce delays to treatment and improve clinical outcomes for acute myocardial infarction patients and other medical emergencies. We investigated national-level EMS response, scene, and transport times for acute chest pain patients in the United States. A retrospective analysis was performed using 2015-2016 data from the National EMS Information System (NEMSIS). Eligible patients were identified as having a provider impression of chest pain or discomfort and not due to trauma or resulting in cardiac arrest during EMS care. Descriptive analyses of prehospital time intervals and patient-, response-, and system-level covariates were performed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to measure associations between meeting response and scene time benchmarks (8-min and 15-min, respectively) and covariates. Our study identified 1,672,893 eligible EMS encounters of chest pain. Patients had a mean age of 63.1 years (SD = 14.8). The population was evenly distributed by sex (51% male; 49% female). Most encounters occurred in home or residence (58%) and had lights and sirens response to scene (84%). Most encounters were in urban areas (78%). The median (interquartile range, IQR) response time was 7 (5-10) minutes. The median (IQR) scene time was 16 (12-20) minutes. The median (IQR) transport time was 13 (8-20) minutes. Generally, median response and transport times were longer in rural and frontier areas compared to urban and suburban areas. Only 65% and 49% met the 8-min response and 15-min scene time benchmarks. Responding with lights and sirens was associated with greater compliance with EMS response time benchmark. EMS care of older age groups and females was less likely to meet the scene time benchmark. Substantial proportions of EMS encounters for chest pain did not meet response and scene time benchmarks. Regional and urban-rural differences were observed in adherence with the response time benchmark. Our findings also suggest age and gender disparities in on-scene delays by EMS. Our study contributes important evidence on timely EMS responses for cardiac chest pain and provides suggestions for EMS system benchmarking and quality improvement.
胸痛是急诊中的主要主诉。及时的紧急医疗服务(EMS)响应可以减少治疗延误,并改善急性心肌梗死患者和其他医疗紧急情况的临床结果。我们调查了美国急性胸痛患者的国家级 EMS 响应、现场和运输时间。使用 2015-2016 年国家 EMS 信息系统(NEMSIS)的数据进行回顾性分析。符合条件的患者被确定为有提供者印象的胸痛或不适,并且在 EMS 护理过程中不是由于创伤或导致心搏骤停。进行了描述性分析,以分析院前时间间隔和患者、响应和系统水平的协变量。使用多变量逻辑回归来衡量符合响应和现场时间基准(分别为 8 分钟和 15 分钟)与协变量之间的关联。我们的研究确定了 1672893 例符合条件的 EMS 胸痛就诊。患者的平均年龄为 63.1 岁(标准差=14.8)。该人群按性别平均分布(51%为男性;49%为女性)。大多数就诊发生在家庭或住所(58%),并对现场发出灯光和警笛响应(84%)。大多数就诊发生在城市地区(78%)。中位数(四分位距,IQR)响应时间为 7(5-10)分钟。中位数(IQR)现场时间为 16(12-20)分钟。中位数(IQR)转运时间为 13(8-20)分钟。通常,农村和边境地区的中位数响应和转运时间比城市和郊区地区长。只有 65%和 49%符合 8 分钟响应和 15 分钟现场时间基准。使用灯光和警笛响应与更符合 EMS 响应时间基准相关。EMS 对年龄较大的群体和女性的护理不太可能符合现场时间基准。大量胸痛的 EMS 就诊不符合响应和现场时间基准。在遵守响应时间基准方面观察到区域和城乡差异。我们的研究结果还表明,在 EMS 现场延迟方面存在年龄和性别差异。我们的研究为心脏胸痛的及时 EMS 响应提供了重要证据,并为 EMS 系统基准测试和质量改进提供了建议。