National Assessment of Quality Programs in Emergency Medical Services

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to understand the adoption of clinical quality measurement throughout the United States on an EMS agency level, the features of agencies that do participate in quality measurement, and the level of physician involvement. It also aims to barriers to implementing quality improvement initiatives in EMS. Methods: A 46-question survey was developed to gather agency level data on current quality improvement practices and measurement. The survey was distributed nationally via State EMS Offices to EMS agencies nation-wide using Surveymonkey©. A convenience sample of respondents was enrolled between August and November, 2015. Univariate, bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to describe demographics and relationships between outcomes of interest and their covariates using SAS 9.3©. Results: A total of 1,733 surveys were initiated and 1,060 surveys had complete or near-complete responses. This includes agencies from 45 states representing over 6.23 million 9-1-1 responses annually. Totals of 70.5% (747) agencies reported dedicated QI personnel, 62.5% (663) follow clinical metrics and 33.3% (353) participate in outside quality or research program. Medical director hours varied, notably, 61.5% (649) of EMS agencies had <5 hours of medical director time per month. Presence of medical director time was correlated with tracking of QI measures. Air medical [OR 9.64 (1.13, 82.16)] and hospital-based EMS agencies [OR 2.49 (1.36, 4.59)] were more likely to track quality measures compared to fire-based agencies. Agencies in rural only environments were less likely to follow clinical quality metrics. (OR 0.47 CI 0.31 −0.72 p < 0.0004). For those that track QI measures, the most common are; Response Time (Emergency) (68.3%), On-Scene Time (66.4%), prehospital stroke screen (64.6%), aspirin administration (64.5%), and 12 lead ECG in chest pain patients (63.0%). Conclusions: EMS agencies in the United States have significant practice variability with regard to quality improvement resources, medical direction and specific clinical quality measures. More research is needed to understand the impact of this variation on patient care outcomes.