Many colleges and universities appear to exist in relative isolation from community-based emergency medical services (EMS) systems. In response, some have developed their own EMS systems.

To determine the extent of this phenomenon and to delineate the characteristics of these systems.

Questionnaires were mailed to 1,503 colleges/universities in the United States and Canada. The questionnaire asked whether the institution had an EMS system and included 19 questions about the characteristics of the system.

A total of 919 (61 %) responses were received. Of the institutions responding, 234 (25%) had an EMS system and 31 (3.4%) were considering starting a system. Characteristics of the systems were as follows: 1) Types of patients—the two most common call types were medical and trauma/surgical; 134 (57%) reported one-fourth of calls to be medical and 91 (39%) reported one-fourth of calls to be trauma/surgical. 2) Type of service—133 (57%) services transport patients; 195 (83%) respond only to the campus or other university property; the remainder also respond to the community; and 135 (58%) function all year. 3) Dispatch—178 (76%) are dispatched by the campus police, although most services are dispatched by several sources; 46 (20%) use 9-1-1. 4) Personnel—two systems (0.85%) exclusively employ paramedic; 141 systems (60%) have at least one emergency medical technician; the remainder use emergency care attendants and first-aid providers; 118 (50%) have medical directors, of these 76 (64 %) are student health physicians and 21 (18%) are community physicians. 5) Demographic Information—The majority of the campus-based EMS systems exist on small campuses in urban areas.

A significant number of colleges/universities have EMS systems and one-half transport patients. However, the level of training of the personnel and medical direction may be below the standard for the EMS systems in the communities in which these campus-based systems exist.

The purpose of the study was to document the occurrence and causes of disagreements between paramedics in a tiered-response emergency medical services (EMS) system.

This cohort analysis of disagreements between paramedics sampled 63 male public agency, 90 male private agency, and 41 female private agency paramedics. Paramedics responded to Likert-type items and one open-ended item concerning the occurrence of conflict between paramedics.

On-scene conflict between EMS personnel from public and private agencies was reported by 70% of the respondents. Conflicts that interfered with patient care were reported to occur more frequently between paramedics from different types of agencies. The most commonly mentioned subject of disagreement was patient treatment, followed by patient transport, interpersonal and interagency conflicts, and patient assessment.

A majority of paramedics have experienced on-scene disagreements with other paramedics. Disagreements occur more frequently between paramedics from different agencies and encompass a wide range of issues concerning patient care and interpersonal relationships.

Comparisons of different emergency medical services (EMS) systems often are reduced to simple comparisons between distinct facilities or strategies (e.g., prehospital physician versus paramedic, “scoop and run” versus “stay and play”).

The EMS systems of similar cities (Cologne and Cleveland) in two different countries (Germany and the United States) are compared. The comparison is seen from the perspective of an evolutionary standpoint that reflects the development of the EMS system in connection with the special environments. Data on rescue times, facilities, and (trauma) outcomes are compared.

No statistically significant differences in outcome between the systems were detected.

Both systems are developed in special environments and are optimized over decades, which explains the similarities in outcome.