• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

使用红灯和警笛进行紧急救护车响应:潜在的挽救生命干预措施的实施频率如何?

Using Red Lights and Sirens for Emergency Ambulance Response: How Often Are Potentially Life-Saving Interventions Performed?

作者信息

Jarvis Jeffrey L, Hamilton Vaughn, Taigman Mike, Brown Lawrence H

出版信息

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2021 Jul-Aug;25(4):549-555. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2020.1797963. Epub 2020 Aug 7.

DOI:10.1080/10903127.2020.1797963
PMID:32678993
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) often respond to 911 calls using red lights and sirens (RLS). RLS is associated with increased collisions and increased injuries to EMS personnel. While some patients might benefit from time savings, there is little evidence to guide targeted RLS response strategies.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the frequency and nature of 911 calls that result in potentially life-saving interventions (PLSI) during the call.

METHODS

Using data from ESO (Austin, Texas, USA), a national provider of EMS electronic health records, we analyzed all 911 calls in 2018. We abstracted the use of RLS, call nature, and interventions performed. A liberal definition of PLSI was developed a priori through a consensus process and included both interventions, medications, and critical hospital notifications. We calculated the proportion of calls with RLS response and with PLSI performed, both overall and stratified by call nature.

RESULTS

There were 5,977,612 calls from 1,187 agencies included in the analysis. The majority (85.8%) of calls utilized RLS, yet few (6.9%) resulted in PLSI. When stratified by call nature, cardiac arrest calls had the highest frequency PLSI (45.0%); followed by diabetic problems (37.0%). Glucose was the most frequently given PLSI,  = 69,036. When including multiple administrations to the same patient, epinephrine was given most commonly PLSI,  = 157,282 administrations).

CONCLUSION

In this large national dataset, RLS responses were very common (86%) yet potentially life-saving interventions were infrequent (6.9%). These data suggest a methodology to help EMS leaders craft targeted RLS response strategies.

摘要

背景

紧急医疗服务(EMS)在应对911报警电话时经常使用红灯和警笛(RLS)。RLS与碰撞增加以及EMS人员受伤增加有关。虽然一些患者可能会从节省时间中受益,但几乎没有证据可指导有针对性的RLS响应策略。

目的

描述在通话期间导致潜在挽救生命干预措施(PLSI)的911报警电话的频率和性质。

方法

利用美国德克萨斯州奥斯汀市的ESO(一家全国性的EMS电子健康记录提供商)的数据,我们分析了2018年所有的911报警电话。我们提取了RLS的使用情况、通话性质以及所采取的干预措施。通过共识过程预先制定了对PLSI的宽泛定义,包括干预措施、药物以及关键的医院通知。我们计算了总体上以及按通话性质分层的使用RLS响应的电话比例和进行了PLSI的电话比例。

结果

分析纳入了来自1187个机构的5977612个电话。大多数(85.8%)电话使用了RLS,但很少(6.9%)导致PLSI。按通话性质分层时,心脏骤停电话的PLSI频率最高(45.0%);其次是糖尿病问题(37.0%)。葡萄糖是最常给予的PLSI,=69036。当包括对同一患者的多次给药时,肾上腺素是最常给予的PLSI,=157282次给药)。

结论

在这个大型的全国数据集中,RLS响应非常普遍(86%),但潜在挽救生命的干预措施很少(6.9%)。这些数据提示了一种方法,可帮助EMS领导者制定有针对性的RLS响应策略。

相似文献

1
Using Red Lights and Sirens for Emergency Ambulance Response: How Often Are Potentially Life-Saving Interventions Performed?使用红灯和警笛进行紧急救护车响应:潜在的挽救生命干预措施的实施频率如何?
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2021 Jul-Aug;25(4):549-555. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2020.1797963. Epub 2020 Aug 7.
2
Unnecessary Use of Red Lights and Sirens in Pediatric Transport.儿科转运中对红灯和警报器的不必要使用。
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2016 May-Jun;20(3):354-61. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2015.1111477. Epub 2016 Jan 25.
3
Is Use of Warning Lights and Sirens Associated With Increased Risk of Ambulance Crashes? A Contemporary Analysis Using National EMS Information System (NEMSIS) Data.使用警示灯和警笛是否会增加救护车碰撞的风险?使用国家紧急医疗服务信息系统(NEMSIS)数据的当代分析。
Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jul;74(1):101-109. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.09.032. Epub 2019 Jan 12.
4
The Use of Emergency Lights and Sirens by Ambulances and Their Effect on Patient Outcomes and Public Safety: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.救护车使用应急灯和警报器及其对患者预后和公共安全的影响:文献综述
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017 Apr;32(2):209-216. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X16001503. Epub 2017 Jan 30.
5
Ambulance staging for potentially dangerous scenes: another hidden component of response time.救护车在潜在危险现场的分级调度:反应时间的另一个隐藏因素。
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010 Jul-Sep;14(3):340-4. doi: 10.3109/10903121003760176.
6
EMS Lights And Sirens急救医疗服务灯光与警笛
7
The Importance of Neighborhood in 9-1-1 Ambulance Contacts: A Geospatial Analysis of Medical and Trauma Emergencies in Denver.《9-1-1 救护车联络中邻里的重要性:丹佛市医疗和创伤急救的地理空间分析》。
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2022 Mar-Apr;26(2):233-245. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2020.1868634. Epub 2021 Feb 25.
8
Time saved with use of emergency warning lights and sirens during response to requests for emergency medical aid in an urban environment.
Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Nov;32(5):585-8. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70037-x.
9
The Critical Intervention Screen: A Novel Tool to Determine the Use of Lights and Sirens during the Transport of Trauma Patients.关键干预筛查器:一种在创伤患者转运中确定使用警灯和警报器的新工具。
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2022 Jul-Aug;26(4):566-572. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2021.1961040. Epub 2021 Aug 17.
10
Paediatric medical emergency calls to a Danish Emergency Medical Dispatch Centre: a retrospective, observational study.丹麦急救医疗调度中心接到的儿科医疗急救电话:一项回顾性观察研究。
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018 Jan 5;26(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s13049-017-0470-1.

引用本文的文献

1
The impact of using time critical intervention-based dispatch thresholds on lowering lights and siren use to EMS 911 incidents.基于时间关键干预的调度阈值对降低紧急医疗服务(EMS)911事件中警灯和警报器使用的影响。
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2024 Aug 8;5(4):e13232. doi: 10.1002/emp2.13232. eCollection 2024 Aug.
2
Effect of urgency level on prehospital emergency transport times: a natural experiment. urgency 对院前急救转运时间的影响:一项自然实验。
Intern Emerg Med. 2024 Mar;19(2):445-453. doi: 10.1007/s11739-023-03501-7. Epub 2023 Dec 20.
3
Driving Speeds in Urgent and Non-Urgent Ambulance Missions during Normal and Reduced Winter Speed Limit Periods-A Descriptive Study.
正常及冬季限速降低期间紧急与非紧急救护车任务中的行驶速度——一项描述性研究
Nurs Rep. 2022 Feb 3;12(1):50-58. doi: 10.3390/nursrep12010006.