Cancellation of responding ALS units by BLS providers: a national survey

In many emergency medical services (EMS) systems, personnel without advanced life support (ALS) training are authorized to cancel responding ALS units before the ALS personnel arrive and examine the patient. This study was conducted to examine these cancellations in major U.S. cities. A survey was m...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Prehospital emergency care 2000-07, Vol.4 (3), p.227-233
Hauptverfasser: Yeh, E L, Cone, D C
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 233
container_issue 3
container_start_page 227
container_title Prehospital emergency care
container_volume 4
creator Yeh, E L
Cone, D C
description In many emergency medical services (EMS) systems, personnel without advanced life support (ALS) training are authorized to cancel responding ALS units before the ALS personnel arrive and examine the patient. This study was conducted to examine these cancellations in major U.S. cities. A survey was mailed to the physician medical directors of the EMS services of the 125 largest U.S. cities, with telephone follow-up of nonresponders. The survey requested information on system structure, and on policies governing cancellation of responding ALS units by non-ALS personnel. Ninety-four cities responded (75%), from 35 states. Nineteen systems (20%) are all-ALS with no basic life support (BLS) tier, and these were eliminated. Of the remaining 75 systems, eight (11%) use BLS ambulances (BLS-A), 35 (47%) use BLS first responders (BLS-FR), and 32 (43%) use both. Of these 75 systems, 60 (80%) allow cancellation of responding ALS units by BLS personnel. Only 24 of these (40%) have written protocols for such cancellations, and only 12 of those (50%) involve specific medical criteria, with two (8%) relying on the best judgment of the BLS personnel with no medical criteria, and another eight (33%) allowing cancellation only for logistic reasons. Of the 60 systems that permit cancellation, 13 (22%) perform some type of medical oversight review of all such calls, 26 (43%) review some such calls (median 10%, range 2-80% for the 19 systems specifying a percentage), 15 (25%) do not review any, and six did not specify. Fewer than half of the surveyed EMS systems that permit non-ALS personnel to cancel responding ALS units use written protocols to guide these decisions, and only half of those protocols utilize specific medical criteria. Medical oversight review of these calls is highly variable, with many systems reviewing few or none of these cancellations.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/10903120090941245
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71234329</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>71234329</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p122t-dc0fbadb2c34599caa44572f9e0d84344109ff5679be4a74e6c1cd0577641e983</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1T8tOwzAAywHExuADuKCcuBXybBpuowKGVIkDcK7SPFBRm5akndS_J4xxsmzZlg3AFUa3GBXoDiOJKCYogWSYMH4C1r9alkSxAucxfiGEc0LzM7BKCcklFmuwK5XXtuvU1A4eDg4GG8fBm9Z_wm31BmffThE2C3xIZAzDvjU2xHuooD9EVAfjHPZ2uQCnTnXRXh5xAz6eHt_LXVa9Pr-U2yobMSFTZjRyjTIN0ZRxKbVSjHFBnLTIFIwyljY7x3MhG8uUYDbXWBvEhcgZtrKgG3Dz15vGfM82TnXfxsMDb4c51gITyiiRyXh9NM5Nb009hrZXYan_v9MfJNxY9g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71234329</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cancellation of responding ALS units by BLS providers: a national survey</title><source>Taylor &amp; Francis</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Taylor &amp; Francis Medical Library - CRKN</source><creator>Yeh, E L ; Cone, D C</creator><creatorcontrib>Yeh, E L ; Cone, D C</creatorcontrib><description>In many emergency medical services (EMS) systems, personnel without advanced life support (ALS) training are authorized to cancel responding ALS units before the ALS personnel arrive and examine the patient. This study was conducted to examine these cancellations in major U.S. cities. A survey was mailed to the physician medical directors of the EMS services of the 125 largest U.S. cities, with telephone follow-up of nonresponders. The survey requested information on system structure, and on policies governing cancellation of responding ALS units by non-ALS personnel. Ninety-four cities responded (75%), from 35 states. Nineteen systems (20%) are all-ALS with no basic life support (BLS) tier, and these were eliminated. Of the remaining 75 systems, eight (11%) use BLS ambulances (BLS-A), 35 (47%) use BLS first responders (BLS-FR), and 32 (43%) use both. Of these 75 systems, 60 (80%) allow cancellation of responding ALS units by BLS personnel. Only 24 of these (40%) have written protocols for such cancellations, and only 12 of those (50%) involve specific medical criteria, with two (8%) relying on the best judgment of the BLS personnel with no medical criteria, and another eight (33%) allowing cancellation only for logistic reasons. Of the 60 systems that permit cancellation, 13 (22%) perform some type of medical oversight review of all such calls, 26 (43%) review some such calls (median 10%, range 2-80% for the 19 systems specifying a percentage), 15 (25%) do not review any, and six did not specify. Fewer than half of the surveyed EMS systems that permit non-ALS personnel to cancel responding ALS units use written protocols to guide these decisions, and only half of those protocols utilize specific medical criteria. Medical oversight review of these calls is highly variable, with many systems reviewing few or none of these cancellations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1090-3127</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/10903120090941245</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10895917</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Advanced Cardiac Life Support ; Data Collection ; Efficiency, Organizational ; Emergency Medical Services - organization &amp; administration ; Emergency Medical Technicians - organization &amp; administration ; Guidelines as Topic ; Humans ; Organizational Policy ; Personnel Staffing and Scheduling ; Transportation of Patients ; United States</subject><ispartof>Prehospital emergency care, 2000-07, Vol.4 (3), p.227-233</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10895917$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yeh, E L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cone, D C</creatorcontrib><title>Cancellation of responding ALS units by BLS providers: a national survey</title><title>Prehospital emergency care</title><addtitle>Prehosp Emerg Care</addtitle><description>In many emergency medical services (EMS) systems, personnel without advanced life support (ALS) training are authorized to cancel responding ALS units before the ALS personnel arrive and examine the patient. This study was conducted to examine these cancellations in major U.S. cities. A survey was mailed to the physician medical directors of the EMS services of the 125 largest U.S. cities, with telephone follow-up of nonresponders. The survey requested information on system structure, and on policies governing cancellation of responding ALS units by non-ALS personnel. Ninety-four cities responded (75%), from 35 states. Nineteen systems (20%) are all-ALS with no basic life support (BLS) tier, and these were eliminated. Of the remaining 75 systems, eight (11%) use BLS ambulances (BLS-A), 35 (47%) use BLS first responders (BLS-FR), and 32 (43%) use both. Of these 75 systems, 60 (80%) allow cancellation of responding ALS units by BLS personnel. Only 24 of these (40%) have written protocols for such cancellations, and only 12 of those (50%) involve specific medical criteria, with two (8%) relying on the best judgment of the BLS personnel with no medical criteria, and another eight (33%) allowing cancellation only for logistic reasons. Of the 60 systems that permit cancellation, 13 (22%) perform some type of medical oversight review of all such calls, 26 (43%) review some such calls (median 10%, range 2-80% for the 19 systems specifying a percentage), 15 (25%) do not review any, and six did not specify. Fewer than half of the surveyed EMS systems that permit non-ALS personnel to cancel responding ALS units use written protocols to guide these decisions, and only half of those protocols utilize specific medical criteria. Medical oversight review of these calls is highly variable, with many systems reviewing few or none of these cancellations.</description><subject>Advanced Cardiac Life Support</subject><subject>Data Collection</subject><subject>Efficiency, Organizational</subject><subject>Emergency Medical Services - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Emergency Medical Technicians - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Organizational Policy</subject><subject>Personnel Staffing and Scheduling</subject><subject>Transportation of Patients</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1090-3127</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo1T8tOwzAAywHExuADuKCcuBXybBpuowKGVIkDcK7SPFBRm5akndS_J4xxsmzZlg3AFUa3GBXoDiOJKCYogWSYMH4C1r9alkSxAucxfiGEc0LzM7BKCcklFmuwK5XXtuvU1A4eDg4GG8fBm9Z_wm31BmffThE2C3xIZAzDvjU2xHuooD9EVAfjHPZ2uQCnTnXRXh5xAz6eHt_LXVa9Pr-U2yobMSFTZjRyjTIN0ZRxKbVSjHFBnLTIFIwyljY7x3MhG8uUYDbXWBvEhcgZtrKgG3Dz15vGfM82TnXfxsMDb4c51gITyiiRyXh9NM5Nb009hrZXYan_v9MfJNxY9g</recordid><startdate>200007</startdate><enddate>200007</enddate><creator>Yeh, E L</creator><creator>Cone, D C</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200007</creationdate><title>Cancellation of responding ALS units by BLS providers: a national survey</title><author>Yeh, E L ; Cone, D C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p122t-dc0fbadb2c34599caa44572f9e0d84344109ff5679be4a74e6c1cd0577641e983</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Advanced Cardiac Life Support</topic><topic>Data Collection</topic><topic>Efficiency, Organizational</topic><topic>Emergency Medical Services - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Emergency Medical Technicians - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Organizational Policy</topic><topic>Personnel Staffing and Scheduling</topic><topic>Transportation of Patients</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yeh, E L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cone, D C</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Prehospital emergency care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yeh, E L</au><au>Cone, D C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cancellation of responding ALS units by BLS providers: a national survey</atitle><jtitle>Prehospital emergency care</jtitle><addtitle>Prehosp Emerg Care</addtitle><date>2000-07</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>227</spage><epage>233</epage><pages>227-233</pages><issn>1090-3127</issn><abstract>In many emergency medical services (EMS) systems, personnel without advanced life support (ALS) training are authorized to cancel responding ALS units before the ALS personnel arrive and examine the patient. This study was conducted to examine these cancellations in major U.S. cities. A survey was mailed to the physician medical directors of the EMS services of the 125 largest U.S. cities, with telephone follow-up of nonresponders. The survey requested information on system structure, and on policies governing cancellation of responding ALS units by non-ALS personnel. Ninety-four cities responded (75%), from 35 states. Nineteen systems (20%) are all-ALS with no basic life support (BLS) tier, and these were eliminated. Of the remaining 75 systems, eight (11%) use BLS ambulances (BLS-A), 35 (47%) use BLS first responders (BLS-FR), and 32 (43%) use both. Of these 75 systems, 60 (80%) allow cancellation of responding ALS units by BLS personnel. Only 24 of these (40%) have written protocols for such cancellations, and only 12 of those (50%) involve specific medical criteria, with two (8%) relying on the best judgment of the BLS personnel with no medical criteria, and another eight (33%) allowing cancellation only for logistic reasons. Of the 60 systems that permit cancellation, 13 (22%) perform some type of medical oversight review of all such calls, 26 (43%) review some such calls (median 10%, range 2-80% for the 19 systems specifying a percentage), 15 (25%) do not review any, and six did not specify. Fewer than half of the surveyed EMS systems that permit non-ALS personnel to cancel responding ALS units use written protocols to guide these decisions, and only half of those protocols utilize specific medical criteria. Medical oversight review of these calls is highly variable, with many systems reviewing few or none of these cancellations.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>10895917</pmid><doi>10.1080/10903120090941245</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1090-3127
ispartof Prehospital emergency care, 2000-07, Vol.4 (3), p.227-233
issn 1090-3127
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71234329
source Taylor & Francis; MEDLINE; Taylor & Francis Medical Library - CRKN
subjects Advanced Cardiac Life Support
Data Collection
Efficiency, Organizational
Emergency Medical Services - organization & administration
Emergency Medical Technicians - organization & administration
Guidelines as Topic
Humans
Organizational Policy
Personnel Staffing and Scheduling
Transportation of Patients
United States
title Cancellation of responding ALS units by BLS providers: a national survey
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T04%3A46%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cancellation%20of%20responding%20ALS%20units%20by%20BLS%20providers:%20a%20national%20survey&rft.jtitle=Prehospital%20emergency%20care&rft.au=Yeh,%20E%20L&rft.date=2000-07&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=227&rft.epage=233&rft.pages=227-233&rft.issn=1090-3127&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/10903120090941245&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E71234329%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71234329&rft_id=info:pmid/10895917&rfr_iscdi=true