Impact of ambulance diversion policies in urban, suburban, and rural areas of Central Maryland

J. J. Scheulen, G. Li, Gabor D Kelen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

As a method to control patient flow to overburdened hospitals, effective emergency medical services (EMS) systems provide policies for ambulance diversion. The Maryland state EMS system supports two types of alert for general hospital use: red alert, aimed at limiting the delivery of patients who may require intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and yellow alert, aimed at preventing further overload of already overtaxed emergency departments (EDs). Objective: To examine the effect of those alert policies in different geographical environments, urban, suburban, and rural. Methods: Alert data for 23 hospitals in Central Maryland and ambulance arrival data for approximately 138,000 ambulance calls during calendar year 1996 were combined and analyzed. The impacts of diversion practices in the geographic areas were compared. Results: Red alert reduced volume in all patient acuity levels in all geographic areas by a statistically significant 0.4 patient/hr. Yellow alert diverted low-acuity patients at the rate of 0.13 patient/hr (p <0.001) in urban areas and at the rate of 0.16 patient/hr (p <0.001) in suburban areas, but had minimal impact in the flow of patients in the rural environment. Conclusions: The ED diversion poticy has some limited effect in preventing further patient volume in urban and suburban areas, but has virtually no impact in rural areas. However, an ICU diversion policy diverts patients of all acuities uniformly and inordinately diverts patients not likely to require ICU admissions while having only minimal impact on patients who do require ICU resources. The impact of red alert is uniform in all geographic areas. The impact and efficacy of ambulance diversion policies should be evaluated to ensure they are having the intended effect. While perhaps initially effective, the impact of alert policies may change over time.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)36-40
Number of pages5
JournalAcademic Emergency Medicine
Volume8
Issue number1
StatePublished - 2001

Fingerprint

Ambulance Diversion
Patient Acuity
Intensive Care Units
Ambulances
Emergency Medical Services
Hospital Emergency Service
General Hospitals

Keywords

  • Ambulance
  • Ambulatory care
  • Emergency medical services
  • Emergency medicine
  • Medical administration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Impact of ambulance diversion policies in urban, suburban, and rural areas of Central Maryland. / Scheulen, J. J.; Li, G.; Kelen, Gabor D.

In: Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2001, p. 36-40.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1f9cd5ac171f469eb79a15d5baf961c9,
title = "Impact of ambulance diversion policies in urban, suburban, and rural areas of Central Maryland",
abstract = "As a method to control patient flow to overburdened hospitals, effective emergency medical services (EMS) systems provide policies for ambulance diversion. The Maryland state EMS system supports two types of alert for general hospital use: red alert, aimed at limiting the delivery of patients who may require intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and yellow alert, aimed at preventing further overload of already overtaxed emergency departments (EDs). Objective: To examine the effect of those alert policies in different geographical environments, urban, suburban, and rural. Methods: Alert data for 23 hospitals in Central Maryland and ambulance arrival data for approximately 138,000 ambulance calls during calendar year 1996 were combined and analyzed. The impacts of diversion practices in the geographic areas were compared. Results: Red alert reduced volume in all patient acuity levels in all geographic areas by a statistically significant 0.4 patient/hr. Yellow alert diverted low-acuity patients at the rate of 0.13 patient/hr (p <0.001) in urban areas and at the rate of 0.16 patient/hr (p <0.001) in suburban areas, but had minimal impact in the flow of patients in the rural environment. Conclusions: The ED diversion poticy has some limited effect in preventing further patient volume in urban and suburban areas, but has virtually no impact in rural areas. However, an ICU diversion policy diverts patients of all acuities uniformly and inordinately diverts patients not likely to require ICU admissions while having only minimal impact on patients who do require ICU resources. The impact of red alert is uniform in all geographic areas. The impact and efficacy of ambulance diversion policies should be evaluated to ensure they are having the intended effect. While perhaps initially effective, the impact of alert policies may change over time.",
keywords = "Ambulance, Ambulatory care, Emergency medical services, Emergency medicine, Medical administration",
author = "Scheulen, {J. J.} and G. Li and Kelen, {Gabor D}",
year = "2001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "36--40",
journal = "Academic Emergency Medicine",
issn = "1069-6563",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact of ambulance diversion policies in urban, suburban, and rural areas of Central Maryland

AU - Scheulen, J. J.

AU - Li, G.

AU - Kelen, Gabor D

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - As a method to control patient flow to overburdened hospitals, effective emergency medical services (EMS) systems provide policies for ambulance diversion. The Maryland state EMS system supports two types of alert for general hospital use: red alert, aimed at limiting the delivery of patients who may require intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and yellow alert, aimed at preventing further overload of already overtaxed emergency departments (EDs). Objective: To examine the effect of those alert policies in different geographical environments, urban, suburban, and rural. Methods: Alert data for 23 hospitals in Central Maryland and ambulance arrival data for approximately 138,000 ambulance calls during calendar year 1996 were combined and analyzed. The impacts of diversion practices in the geographic areas were compared. Results: Red alert reduced volume in all patient acuity levels in all geographic areas by a statistically significant 0.4 patient/hr. Yellow alert diverted low-acuity patients at the rate of 0.13 patient/hr (p <0.001) in urban areas and at the rate of 0.16 patient/hr (p <0.001) in suburban areas, but had minimal impact in the flow of patients in the rural environment. Conclusions: The ED diversion poticy has some limited effect in preventing further patient volume in urban and suburban areas, but has virtually no impact in rural areas. However, an ICU diversion policy diverts patients of all acuities uniformly and inordinately diverts patients not likely to require ICU admissions while having only minimal impact on patients who do require ICU resources. The impact of red alert is uniform in all geographic areas. The impact and efficacy of ambulance diversion policies should be evaluated to ensure they are having the intended effect. While perhaps initially effective, the impact of alert policies may change over time.

AB - As a method to control patient flow to overburdened hospitals, effective emergency medical services (EMS) systems provide policies for ambulance diversion. The Maryland state EMS system supports two types of alert for general hospital use: red alert, aimed at limiting the delivery of patients who may require intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and yellow alert, aimed at preventing further overload of already overtaxed emergency departments (EDs). Objective: To examine the effect of those alert policies in different geographical environments, urban, suburban, and rural. Methods: Alert data for 23 hospitals in Central Maryland and ambulance arrival data for approximately 138,000 ambulance calls during calendar year 1996 were combined and analyzed. The impacts of diversion practices in the geographic areas were compared. Results: Red alert reduced volume in all patient acuity levels in all geographic areas by a statistically significant 0.4 patient/hr. Yellow alert diverted low-acuity patients at the rate of 0.13 patient/hr (p <0.001) in urban areas and at the rate of 0.16 patient/hr (p <0.001) in suburban areas, but had minimal impact in the flow of patients in the rural environment. Conclusions: The ED diversion poticy has some limited effect in preventing further patient volume in urban and suburban areas, but has virtually no impact in rural areas. However, an ICU diversion policy diverts patients of all acuities uniformly and inordinately diverts patients not likely to require ICU admissions while having only minimal impact on patients who do require ICU resources. The impact of red alert is uniform in all geographic areas. The impact and efficacy of ambulance diversion policies should be evaluated to ensure they are having the intended effect. While perhaps initially effective, the impact of alert policies may change over time.

KW - Ambulance

KW - Ambulatory care

KW - Emergency medical services

KW - Emergency medicine

KW - Medical administration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035186415&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035186415&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11136145

AN - SCOPUS:0035186415

VL - 8

SP - 36

EP - 40

JO - Academic Emergency Medicine

JF - Academic Emergency Medicine

SN - 1069-6563

IS - 1

ER -