Warning Lights @ Sirens use in EMS

[Ace844]

Hi All,

Rather than continue to hijack the other thread where this started i figured I'd start a new one where we can discuss this issue.....

Now let's see what a few studies have to say::::

EMERGENCY MEDICAL VEHICLE COLLISIONS AND POTENTIAL FOR PREVENTIVE INTERVENTION

Catherine B. Custalow A1 and Craig S. Gravitz A1

A1 University of Virginia (CBC), Charlottesville, Virginia; and Denver Health Medical Center (CSG), Denver, Colorado.

Abstract:

Background. Emergency medical vehicle collisions (EMVCs) cause significant injury, death, and property damage every year in the United States and result in significant delays in transporting patients to the hospital. Objective. To identify factors associated with EMVCs that are potentially amenable to preventive intervention. Methods. The authors reviewed data from the Paramedic Division of the Denver Health and Hospital Authority (DHHA) on all EMVCs occurring from 1989 through 1997. Results. A T-bone mechanism, collision at an intersection, and alcohol intoxication of the civilian driver were all significant predictors of collisions resulting in injury (odds ratios of 29.7, 4.3 and 6.1, respectively, p < 0.05, multiple logistic regression). Although only 75% of the division's responses are run with warning lights and sirens (WLS), a disproportionate 91% of response mode collisions were during a WLS response. The responsible EMV driver had a history of multiple EMVCs in 71% of the collisions. Conclusions. Potential interventions suggested by this study include the need for EMV drivers to visually clear the intersection before entering it, alerting other drivers with visual and auditory warning systems, and attempting to make eye contact with them at an intersection. The authors recommend continued public education regarding the risks of drunk driving. The authors feel that the WLS driving mode is best reserved for patients in whom the benefits of shorter response and return times outweigh the risk of collision. Finally, the authors advocate careful review of drivers' collision history, frequent emergency vehicle operator's course retraining, and appropriate discipline when necessary.

DO WARNING LIGHTS AND SIRENS REDUCE AMBULANCE RESPONSE TIMES?

Lawrence H. Brown A1, Christa L. Whitney A1, Richard C. Hunt A1, Michael Addario A1, Troy Hogue A1

A1 Department of Emergency Medicine (LHB, RCH) and the College of Medicine (CLW), State University of New York Health Science Center at Syracuse, Syracuse, New York; and Rural/Metro Medical Services (MA, TH), Syracuse, New York.

Abstract:

Objective. To determine the time saving associated with lights and siren (L&S) use during emergency response in an urban EMS system. Methods. This prospective study evaluated ambulance response times from the location at time of dispatch to the scene of an emergency in an urban area. A control group of responses using L&S was compared with an experimental group that did not use L&S. An observer was assigned to ride along with ambulance crews and record actual times for all L&S responses. At a later date, an observer and an off-duty paramedic in an identical ambulance retraced the route--at the same time of day on the same day of the week--without using L&S and recorded the travel time. Response times for the two groups were compared using paired t-test. Results. The 32 responses with L&S averaged 105.8 seconds (1 minute, 46 seconds) faster than those without (95% confidence interval: 60.2 to 151.5 seconds, p = 0.0001). The time difference ranged from 425 seconds (7 minutes, 5 seconds) faster with L&S to 210 seconds (3 minutes, 30 seconds) slower with L&S. Conclusion. In this urban EMS system, L&S reduce ambulance response times by an average of 1 minute, 46 seconds. Although statistically significant, this time saving is likely to be clinically relevant in only a very few cases. A large-scale multicenter L&S trial may help address this issue on a national level.

Use of Warning Lights and Siren in Emergency Medical Vehicle Response and Patient Transport

National Association of Emergency Medical Services Physicians (NAEMSP) and

the National Association of State EMS Directors (NASEMSD)

This paper was developed for NAEMSP by the Emergency Medical Response Task Force: Jeff J. Clawson, MD, Chair; Robert Forbuss; Scott A. Hauert; Fred Hurtado; Alexander E. Kuehl, MD; W.H. ABill@ Leonard; Peter A. Maningas, MD; Joseph L. Ryan, MD; and Donald R. Sharpe. It was reviewed and adopted to the position paper format by the NAEMSP Standards and Clinical Practice Committee, Herbert G. Garrison, MD, MPH, Chair.

Correspondence: Executive Director, National Association of EMS Physicians, P.O. Box 15945-281, Lenexa, KS 66285-5945.

The position paper was approved by the NAEMSP Executive Committee on 18 November 1993, and by the Executive Committee of the National Association of State EMS Directors on 6 January 1994.

Published in Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, April-June 1994.

Abbreviations: EMS = emergency medical services; EMV = emergency medical vehicle; L&S = lights and siren

Introduction

The use of warning lights and siren (L&S) by prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) vehicles is a basic component of emergency response and patient transport. This public-safety practice predates modern EMS by 50 years1. Despite the long-term reliance on L&S, it is not a risk-free practice. There are many reports of emergency medical vehicle (EMV) collisions during L&S responses and transports2-4. These collisions often result in tragic consequences for the EMV occupants and those in other vehicles, and may cause significant delays to medical care for the patient the EMV was responding to or transporting5. While there is no systematic collection of EMV collision data, some authors have suggested that the available information underestimates the extent of the problem6,7. In addition, to date there have been few published analyses regarding the effectiveness of L&S as a modality that improves response times or, more important, patient outcome.

Despite the lack of data, it generally is accepted that the use of L&S is a privilege granted to emergency medical responders that should be reserved for those situations in which patient welfare is at stake. To provide guidance to the states' EMS medical directors and system managers, the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) and the National Association of State EMS Directors (NASEMSD) endorse the following positions regarding the use of warning L&S in EMV response and patient transport.

Position Statements

1. Emergency medical services (EMS) medical directors should participate directly in the development of policies governing EMV response, patient transport, and the use of warning lights and siren.

Emergency medical vehicle response policy decisions involve many medical care and medical direction issues including patient outcome, quality improvement, patient and emergency medical provider safety, and risk management. Therefore, EMV response and patient transport decisions should be guided, reviewed, and approved by the EMS medical director.

2. The use of warning lights and siren during an emergency response to the scene and during patient transport should be based on standardized protocols that take into account situational and patient problem assessments.

Written protocols and guidelines should delineate when to use L&S during scene response and patient transport. These protocols should be based on a reasonable identification of situations for which a reduction in response and transport times might improve patient outcome. The protocols should be developed in conjunction with local emergency response practices and statutes and should receive approval from the EMS medical director. Final protocols should be distributed to all dispatch and EMS entities. Warning lights and siren protocols should be enforced, and inappropriate use of L&S by EMS personnel will be limited.

3. EMS dispatch agencies should utilize an emergency medical dispatch priority reference system that has been developed in conjunction with and approved by the EMS medical director to determine which requests for prehospital medical care require the use of warning lights and siren.

Sound dispatch prioritization systems establish a patient’s level of severity, which then allows the determination of the type of vehicle(s) that should respond and the urgency of that response. Emergency medical dispatch centers should institute the protocols and monitor adherence to them.

4. Except for suspected life-threatening, time-critical cases or cases involving multiple patients, L&S response by more than one EMV usually is unnecessary.

Guidelines for the multi-EMV L&S response should be outlined in emergency medical response policies and dispatch procedures.

5. The utilization of emergency warning L&S should be limited to emergency response and emergency transport situations only.

Alternative practices, such as returning to a station or quarters using warning L&S or using L&S for Astaging@ or moving to designated areas to stand-by for a response, should be discontinued. Exceptions to such a policy would include extraordinary circumstances such as a disaster, or situations in which patient outcome could be affected.

6. All agencies that operate EMVs or are responsible for emergency medical responders should institute and maintain emergency vehicle operation education programs for the EMV operators.

Initial and continuing education of EMS personnel should include instruction in safe and appropriate EMV driving techniques and should take place prior to initial EMV operation. Knowledge and demonstrated skill in EMV operation are prerequisites for all public-safety vehicle operators.

7. Emergency medical vehicle-related collisions occurring during an emergency response or transport should be evaluated by EMS system managers and medical directors.

Such evaluations should include an assessment of the dispatch process, as well as initial (at the beginning of the transport) and final patient conditions.

8. A national reporting system for EMV collisions should be established.

Data are needed regarding the prevalence, circumstances, and causes of EMV collisions, including related injuries and deaths, and "wake effect" collisions. Collection of the information should start at the state and local levels; the information collected should include uniform data elements for tabulation and nationwide comparison.

9. Scientific studies evaluating the effectiveness of warning L&S under specific situations should be conducted and validated.

These important research efforts should be supported by both public and private resources.

10. Laws and statutes should take into account prudent safety practices by both EMS providers and the monitoring public.

The major emphasis and focus should remain on the exercise of prudent judgment and due regard by EMV operators. Laws and statutes also should emphasize the motoring public's responsibility to clear a lane or access way for EMVs.

11. National standards for safe EMV operation should be developed.

Such standards should mandate that EMV operators should approach intersections safely and have a clear view of all lanes of traffic before proceeding through. Standards also should set appropriate speed limits for emergency responses and transports in urban and rural settings, and for responses that occur under adverse road, traffic, and weather conditions.

Discussion

The Risk of the Emergency Response

Response to and transport of emergency patients are integral components of the EMS chain of care. Since the beginning of modern EMS, the usual vehicle response mode has involved the use of L&S. Since this type of response was consistent with the practices of other public-safety agencies that use emergency vehicles (i.e., law enforcement and the fire service), the practice was implemented initially without question. As an understanding of EMS call histories and patient outcomes has evolved, it has become evident that the use of L&S by EMS vehicles is not necessary for every response or patient transport4.

There is risk associated with the use of warning L&S: emergency medical vehicles running "hot" (with L&S) have been involved in many collisions that have resulted in injuries and death in a high number of cases2,4,6. The monetary loss derived from EMV collisions, including property damage, increased insurance premiums, and liability payments in some venues, have eclipsed that of any other negligence-related EMS problem7,8. This situation exists at a time when published data demonstrating the use of L&S in response or patient transport is effective in improving patient outcome are lacking. In fact, the U.S. Department of Transportation has reported that sirens may never become an effective warning device9. Even if warning L&S eventually are shown to be useful in certain time-critical situations (e.g., cardiac arrest or penetrating chest injuries), it is unlikely that L&S will be proven beneficial for each and every EMS response and transport.

Concern about patient welfare, combined with inadequate information on a patient's actual condition, often pressures emergency medical technicians and paramedics to rush to and from scenes in order to "save lives." As Auerbach5 states, "...loose interpretation of what constitutes an emergency has essentially given [EMV operators permission] to operate their vehicles as they see fit while carrying victims who are essentially stable by anyone's definition."

Medical Director Involvement

Since EMS response and patient transport are prehospital medical "tools," accountable EMS medical directors should be involved in the development of emergency response and transport policies10. Additionally, EMS medical directors should evaluate EMV collisions for the medical correctness of the dispatch process, the patient's condition on arrival at the scene and when the transport began, and the patient's eventual outcome. For those medical directors who may need assistance with this aspect of prehospital care, advice is available from colleagues in NAEMSP, NASEMSD, and other EMS organizations.

Standardized Dispatch, Response, and Transport

Sound emergency medical dispatch protocols should be established and used as the basis for determining those situations that would benefit from the appropriate use of warning L&S. Research is emerging that supports the concept that medically sound protocols safely delineate which patients do and do not require emergency advanced life support11, 12. Such protocols, as well as proper emergency medical dispatcher and EMV operator training, should be integral parts of a local dispatch agency's emergency medical dispatch system. The American Society for Testing Materials state in their Standard Practice for Emergency Medical Dispatch document 13 that "this practice may assist in overcoming some of the misconceptions...that red lights, siren, and maximal response are always necessary." Ideally, the use of L&S should be reserved for those situations or circumstances in which response and transport times have been shown to improve a patient's chances for survival or quality of life. Examples of such situations include cardiac or respiratory arrest, airway obstruction, extreme dyspnea, critical trauma, childbirth and problems with pregnancy, drowning, and electrocution. In some of these cases, a rapid response is important (e.g., cardiac arrest), whereas in others rapid transport is necessary (e.g., breech birth).

Nevertheless, a large number of calls to 9-1-1 are for non-emergency problems that require neither rapid response nor rapid patient transport14, 15. Systems utilizing non-L&S response modes for such low-priority calls have experienced few problems16. This issue, however, requires more in-depth study in order to determine the specific positive and negative effects of L&S utilization on patient outcome in the various types of high- and low-priority cases.

In the typical EMS model, once a patient is evaluated and provided appropriate emergency treatment, transport by an EMV is initiated to move the patient to a definitive care facility. Many patients to whom EMS respond do not require L&S for patient transport. However, many EMS systems do not have protocols governing L&S use during patient transport, and few endorse contact with an on-line medical control base-station for advice or consent on the use of L&S transport.

Response of Multiple Emergency Medical Vehicles

The use of warning L&S by all EMVs responding to a single incident has been scrutinized in many systems and many of those systems have adopted a modified approach12, 17. From a medical point of view, the response of more than one unit utilizing L&S is necessary only in those situations involving suspected life-threatening, time-critical cases, or multiple patients. Likewise, the practice of returning to a station or quarters using L&S so as to "be in position" for the next call has no support in most responsible public-safety communities.

The Emergency Medical Vehicle Operator

While prevention of EMV collisions will depend on the application of sound dispatch protocols, dispatcher training, and direct involvement of the EMS medical director in developing dispatch and transport policies, attention also should be directed at the EMV operator. Before a driver of an emergency vehicle takes the wheel, their driving records should be carefully screened, and each should be trained in the proper use of EMVs. Rigorous education and control of EMV drivers should reduce EMV collisions, create a more standard approach and practice to EMV operation, and improve EMV longevity. Fortunately, there are detailed instruction guides for proper EMV operation18, 19. Emergency medical services provider education should include instruction in "low force" driving techniques. In addition, all personnel operating EMS vehicles should be involved in agency quality improvement programs including continuing education courses on EMV operation.

Some state laws require that EMV operators exercise what is called "due regard." New Jersey law (N.J.S.A. 39:4-91) states it "...shall not relieve the driver of any authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall it protect the driver from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others." Using laws of this nature, a number of prosecutors recently have charged and convicted ambulance operators of involuntary manslaughter14. Most state laws, however, fail to place clear responsibility for the use of L&S on the EMS operators themselves20. While much talk has ensued regarding the public's responsibility to "watch out" or "get out of the way," EMS should not blame the public for the problem of EMV collisions.

The EMS Profession

Responsibility rests with the EMS profession and local governments to establish minimum standards for the safe operations of EMS vehicles and to monitor the use of such standards. An example of such a standard would be a formal policy stating that EMVs should not exceed the locally posted speed limit in urban settings, should not exceed the speed limit by more than 10 miles per hour in rural areas, and that EMVs should not travel at any speed that is unsafe for current road, traffic, or weather conditions.

Nationally, EMS-related organizations should work together in helping to create standards that detail the positions in this document. Organizations that should be involved in a effort to set standards for emergency medical response and transport include the American Ambulance Association, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Association of Public Safety Officers, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, the National Association of EMS Physicians, the National Association of State EMS Directors, the National Association of State EMS Training Coordinators, the National EMS Alliance, and the National Fire Protection Agency.

Reimbursement

The reimbursement profiles of many EMS agencies contain an extra charge for the use of warning L&S. This occurs because the federal Health Care Financing Administration reimbursement policies recognize L&S use as a special circumstance. Insurance reimbursement for "emergencies" also may be predicated on L&S use, further perpetuating this problem. Unless these types of policies and profiles are modified by the government, insurance companies, and the EMS profession itself, adjustments in L&S use (as recommended in this document) may be viewed as adversely affecting EMS reimbursement. Therefore, without reimbursement policy modifications, the L&S reform process may be slowed.

Emergency Medical Vehicle Collision Reporting

The amount of data available on EMV collisions in general is fragmented and has not been obtained using any systematized or scientific format4, 5. The Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) may underestimate EMV collision occurrence and outcome. In 1990-1991, a national press clipping service documented 303 EMV collisions in one year resulting in 711 injuries and 78 deaths. (Clawson, unpublished data). The number of fatalities discovered in this newspaper review eclipses those reported by FARS involving EMVs for the same time period.

An acknowledged, but little-studied result of L&S use is the "wake effect," in which use of L&S results in collisions that involve only civilian vehicles and not the EMV itself. The ratio of wake effect collisions to those actually involving an EMV may be as high as five to one6. However, this only can be adequately assessed with a comprehensive EMV collision reporting system.

There are models for EMV collision reporting systems. The National Fire Protection Agency has had in place a uniform process for reporting and quantifying fire fighting-related collisions and injuries for many years. Utah and Tennessee have "ambulance accident" reporting systems. As Auerbach5 has reported about Tennessee's system: "Before the requirement for accident reporting was imposed, [EMV collisions] analysis would have been impossible. Prehospital [EMV collision] data collection is essential if emergency medical services physicians are to exert reasonable control and make knowledgeable recommendations involving clinical care and professional regulations." Ideally, the federal government will initiate a national reporting system for EMV collisions. Any reporting system should be uniformly structured, track the multiple different types of responding agencies and vehicles including both volunteer and fire-based first responders (not just "ambulances"), and also provide a mechanism for the identification and reporting of wake effect collisions.

Research

Regrettably, there currently are few published investigations of dispatch protocols for L&S use. Also, there are no published studies attempting to evaluate the effectiveness of L&S use in terms of patient outcome. Worse still, there are no studies in either refereed or public safety trade journals that demonstrate that the use of L&S saves significant time over routine driving methods. In 1987, Auerbach5 demonstrated that the mean delay to hospital care after an EMV collision in Tennessee approached 10 minutes.

The use of warning L&S in EMS rests primarily on the unsupported tradition that has evolved from police- and fire-response practices. In some cases, these practices may adversely affect EMS patients and providers. Therefore, a series of objective, well-structured, scientific studies aimed at identifying both the positive and negative effects of L&S use should be pursued.

Conclusion

In order to ensure that we "first do no harm," 20 sound rationale and corresponding protocols and policies for the use of warning L&S in EMV response and patient transport should be developed and instituted in all EMS systems. All EMV operators should be trained adequately and regulated. The judicious use of warning L&S in the initial response and subsequent transport of patients likely will result in a more balanced system of appropriate care with minimization of iatrogenic injury and death.

Also see these studies:: Is Ambulance Transport Time With Lights and Siren Faster Than That Without?

Wheels of Fortune

Use of Warning Lights and Siren in Emergency Medical Vehicle Response and Patient Transport

How to modify the risk-taking behaviour of emergency medical services drivers?

Comparison of Crashes Involving Ambulances with Those of Similar-Sized Vehicles

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE USE OF PRIORITY DISPATCH OF EMERGENCY AMBULANCES

Paramedic Response Time: Does It Affect Patient Survival?

[Guest]

Do you really want to know if Lights and Sirens make a difference in responce time? Here is a simple test that has been done many places.

Take a map of your service area and mark your staions location. Have a marker in one hand, raise it above the map, Let it go.

The mark left on the map is the location you will be responding to. Have a unit respond lights and sirens to that location then have a supervisor or someone else in a normal vehicle at normal speeds at the same time they leave. when the responding crews arrive on the "scene" have them time how long it takes the other "normal" responder to arrive. or have someone on the radio marking times when each responder arrives on "scene". do the math.

Then next ask the family of the next AMI patient you run on if they would have preferred that you run normal or lights and sirens.

Quote all the studies you want. it is worth it and i will continue to do it when my partner or I feel the patient is in need of it.

[Dustdevil]

it is worth it and i will continue to do it when my partner or I feel the patient is in need of it.

Especially if the caller requests that we do not!

[Ace844]

Especially if the caller requests that we do not!

I've always enjoyed going to calls similar to those, especially when the dispatcher give us the following info:: "Ambulance 1, respond to XYZ Rehad for the patient 'not breathing, and not doing well', facility staff state that the pt is in no distress and no ALS will be required or wanted..."!!

out here,

Ace844

[Richard B the EMT]

Is it just me, or does anyone else notice that in a large city, more people seem to move out of the way of an ambulance when the vehicle is not on a call, and they take turns blocking when we go L&S?

[Guest]

Our calls like that are to the local death warehouses aka nursing homes, they call 911 and page us out to "patient transport to ER for evaluation." " Home requests non emergent responce" ...... Like hell those calls are usually at 3 am. when we get there the patient is usually stroking or has arrested and been down for 10 to 15 minutes before they call.

When we tell them that they need to quit requesting non emergent responce they tell us " well they are a DNR patient"

Last time i checked DNR was Do Not Resusitate not Do Not Treat.

If they are pulseless, apnic, and have a DNR call the funeral home.

[strippel]

So Richard, I am not paranoid? Am I?

Far more people (usually the little old people, with blue hair and white gloves, can't see over the dash board) usually jam on the brakes while you are just driving around, with the headlights on.

We frequently do not use lights and sirens. Our county (required of us by the state of PA) instituted the "class response system". Class 1 is ALS emergency, 2 BLS emergency, 3 BLS non-emergent.

There are many times we respond to a class 1 cardiac w/o RLS. Why? Close proximity!. It actually takes less time for us to respond without RLS, than deal with the traffic problems causes with turning them on. And we very infrequently use RLS when transporting to the hospital (per company policy). Last 3 traumas, no RLS, and short transport times.

Two of our past managers have moved on to positions either at major EMS insurance agencies, or at the DOH. They come back to visit, bringing info and videos that we are required to learn from.

[Nate]

It is all in the driver IMHO. I've been with medics who took longer to run emergency traffic then they would if they weren't going emergency traffic because of the simple fact that they don't know where to put the ambulance to avoid heavy traffic. They will get themselves caught up in the right or center lanes instead of staying to the left. (When you hit that center or right lane, traffic doesn't know where to go.)

I don't feel that I have an increased risk for accident because I usually jump all over who ever is driving me for not stoping at stop signs, red lights, and intersections. I believe that our lights and sirens are a way of letting people know we are going to be where they are pretty soon, not a shield that people are going to magically stop for me. To many people think that just because you turn your lights and sirens on that people are going to suddenly bow down to you.

I don't transport emergency traffic very often though, you have to be pretty messed up for me to run emergency traffic to the hospital.

[Guest]

that was just my point. It should be up to the individual driver as to whether they run lights and sirens. I don't need the local police or definitely don't need dispatch telling me how to run. Police have first aid trainign at best most of the time. Yes there are exceptions but not often.

[Dustdevil]

that was just my point. It should be up to the individual driver as to whether they run lights and sirens. I don't need the local police or definitely don't need dispatch telling me how to run.

Hehe, what a coincidence. That's exactly my position on entering potentially violent scenes too!