Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction: Canadian post-secondary campuses are densely-populated communities and the first home-away-from-home to many students participating in various academic programs, new social activities, and on-campus athletic activities. The diversity of on-campus activities combined with the high-stress of academic programs results in illness and injury rates that may increase the strain on emergency medical systems. Existing on some campuses for more than 30 years, campus emergency medical response teams (CEMRTs) address the need for a local emergency medical service that can provide first-aid in low-acuity situations and rapid response to high-acuity emergencies. In Canada, many student-run volunteer-responder CEMRTs exist but the range of their service capabilities, operations, and their call-volumes have not been described previously. This study aims to fill this knowledge gap. Methods: We surveyed the 30 known campus emergency medical response teams identified through membership in the Canadian Association of Campus Emergency Response Teams. The 32-question survey asked information on their level of training (standard first aid [SFA], first responder [FR], emergency medical responder [EMR]), service operations including call volume, and funding model. This study was approved by the Western University Institutional Review Board. Results: Twenty-four teams completed the survey (80%); the majority of which are located in Ontario (70%, 16 teams). One team reported that they are no longer in operation. Eleven teams (48%) have medical directors. Nine teams (39%) reported responding to ≤100 calls/year, 11 teams (48%) reported 100-500 calls/year, and 3 teams (13%) reported >500 calls/year. Responders of two teams (9%) maintain training at SFA level; 14 teams (61%) have some or all responders with FR training; and 6 teams (26%) have some or all members certified at EMR level. Twenty-one teams (91%) are equipped with AEDs and 19 teams (83%) are equipped with oxygen. Common medications carried include epinephrine (13 teams, 57%), naloxone (12 teams, 52%), and acetylsalicylic acid (9 teams, 39%). Conclusion: Canadian post-secondary campuses have highly-active student-run volunteer CMERTs. Considerable variability in the services provided may reflect the unique needs of the campuses they serve. CEMRTs may reduce low-acuity case demand on local emergency medical response and emergency department services in some communities; their impact on system demand and costs is the subject of future work.
