Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:24:01.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Hospital Resource Unavailability and Ambulance Diversions on the EMS System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Keith W. Neely ,
Robert L. Norton  and
Gary P. Young
Keith W. Neely*
Affiliation:
Oregon Health Sciences University, Department of Emergency Medicine, Portland, Ore.
Robert L. Norton
Affiliation:
Oregon Health Sciences University, Department of Emergency Medicine, Portland, Ore.
Gary P. Young
Affiliation:
Highland General Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Oakland, Calif.
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University, 3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park Road, Pordand, OR 97201USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hypotheses:

1) There is no increase in transport or scene time of diverted patients and no increase in distances traveled; 2) hospital resource shortages bear no relationship to the number of patients diverted; and 3) paramedics are able to match their patient correctly with the resources available at a given hospital.

Methods:

This was a five-month, prospective, observational study in an urban area with a population of 600,000 comparing all 9-1-1 ambulance diversions against a randomly selected sample of 5% of all other 9-1-1 originated patients. All patient diversions that originated from the 9-1-1 center are included in the study.

Results:

Hospitals identify their diversion status on a community-wide computer system monitored at the 9-1-1 center and base station. Accepted categories include: 1) diversion of all patients through the 9-1-1 center from the emergency department (ED); 2) trauma system patients (T); 3) psychiatric secure beds (PSB); 4) general acute ward beds (AW); 5) critical care (CC); 6) computed tomography scan (CT); 7) labor and delivery (LD); and 8) pediatric beds (PEDS). Data were abstracted from 481 patients' records. A total of 111 were diverted from their intended destination. Transport times were longer and diverted patients traveled further (p <.002). Hospitals showing ED and LD diversion categories were more likely to have patients diverted away (r2 = .895, multilinear regression, p <.001). Of the 111 patients, 21 (19%) were diverted because of CC unavailability. Six of these (28%) were inappropriate because they did not fit the CC definition.

Conclusions:

In this system, hospital diversions increase transport times and distances traveled. Diversion of patients correlated strongly to unavailability of specific categories. Paramedics make errors in determining appropriate CC diversions. Systems reviewing their diversion problems need to assess the impact of longer out-of-hospital times and of certain diversion categories, and to clarify definitions.

Keywords

ambulance diversionscritical careEMS systememergency departmenthealth maintenance organization (HMO)labor and deliverovercrowdingpsychiatrypediatricsresource unavailabilitytrauma
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 172 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Jastremski, MS Lagoe, R Patient distribution of an urban-rural emergency medical system. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1989;4:119–130.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous staff report. Outreach. American Hospital Association. 1989;10:1–6.Google Scholar
3. Neely, KW Bennison, A Acker, J et al. Computerized hospital on-line resource allocation link (CHORAL): A mechanism to monitor and establish policy for hospital ambulance diversions. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1991;6:459–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Norton, RL Bartkus, EA Neely, KW et al. Compliance with closest hospital transport protocol. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1992:7:3,243–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Neely, KN Moorhead, JC Long, W et al. Computerized trauma communications systems in interface. JEMS 1988;13:6,76–79.Google Scholar
6. Neely, KN Bennison, A Acker, J et al. Analysis of hospital availability to provide trauma services: A comparison between teaching and community hospitals. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1991;6;455–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Personal communication with Linnea O'Neill, Assistant Director, Clinical, Administrative, Professional Emergency Services, Chicago Health Care Council, 1990.Google Scholar
8. Multnomah County, Portland, Oregon, Advanced Life Support Protocol Manual, 1990.Google Scholar