Health policy and clinical practice/original researchAnalysis of Ambulance Transports and Diversions Among US Emergency Departments
Introduction
In 2003, there were approximately 114 million emergency department (ED) visits in the United States, which was the highest visit volume ever reported.1 From 1993 to 2003, the number of ED visits rose by 26%, whereas the number of EDs decreased by 12%.1 This increasing demand for ED services, coupled with fewer operating EDs, leads to higher visit volumes in those remaining open, which can overwhelm ED resources, as well as other parts of the hospital system. When EDs lack the capacity to provide emergency care for patients requiring treatment or admission, they commonly divert ambulances to other hospitals.2 Another consequence of ED crowding includes emergency medical services (EMS) providers remaining with the patient until the ED staff has room to handle the case. This affects the entire EMS system by tying up EMS resources, reducing response time, delaying patient care, and creating conflict with ED staff. The health of the community is also affected by ambulance diversion in that the capacity of the ED to respond to infectious disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and terrorist attacks is reduced.
About 14% of ED patients arrive by air or ground ambulance transport.1 Such patients tend to be older than the average ED patient 1 and likely require more resources, ranging from diagnostic tests performed and treatment provided to total time spent in the ED. Understanding how emergency care is organized and delivered, how well transitions from EMS to ED work, and the extent of resources required by ambulance cases is important for gauging not only future ED needs but also EMS services. Little has been published on national estimates of resources involved in ED transport cases. There is no national EMS database, and no national estimates exist for the frequency of ambulance diversions.
In this study, we used data from the ED component of the 2003 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) to describe the characteristics of patients transported by ambulance and the extent of resources used in their ED care. We also used supplemental survey data from the NHAMCS to describe the magnitude of ambulance diversion episodes nationwide. Using the volume of transports and the frequency and duration of diversion, we estimated, by modeling, the number of ambulances that were likely diverted in US hospitals during 2003.
Section snippets
Study Design
The NHAMCS is an annual probability sample survey of US hospital EDs and outpatient departments. It was first conducted in 1992 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The US Census Bureau is responsible for field operations and data collection. The NHAMCS uses a 4-stage probability sampling procedure: (1) 112 geographic primary sampling units; (2) probability sample of nonfederal, short-stay, or general hospitals with EDs or
Analysis of ED Visit Data on Ambulance Transports
In 2003, there were 16.2 million ED visits (14.2%) in which the patient arrived by ambulance; this figure corresponds to 44,300 per day and 1,800 per hour. The peak time of arrival for ambulance transports was 10 am to 1 pm, with a smaller peak occurring from 5 pm to 7 pm (Figure 1). The majority of patient visits were for illness (59.3%), whereas 40.7% were for injury, poisoning, or adverse effects of medical treatment. Although the rate for all ambulance arrivals was fairly consistent across
Limitations
The limitations of the portion of the study describing ambulance transports are that data are not collected on out-of-hospital EMS care or on whether multiple patients arrive in the same ambulance, so it is assumed that each arrival is a different ambulance transport. For the ambulance diversion section of the article, there are limitations of the estimates provided, and there is no standard definition of diversion. The estimate of the volume of ambulances diverted is conservative because there
Discussion
This report describes the magnitude and frequency of ambulance transports and diversions at US EDs. Although mode of arrival to the ED was collected and reported from the 1999 and 2000 NHAMCS, it did not receive wide attention, even though NHAMCS data represent the only national estimate of ambulance transports to the ED. The relative proportion of ED visits in which the patient arrived by ambulance remained constant from 1999 to 2003 (14.2%)1, 7; however, the number of arrivals increased from
References (17)
- et al.
Community trial to decrease ambulance diversion hoursthe San Diego County patient destination trial
Ann Emerg Med
(2004) - et al.
Effect of ICU capacity on emergency department length of stay and ambulance diversion
Ann Emerg Med
(2005) - et al.
National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2003 Emergency Department Summary: Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics; No. 358
(2005) - et al.
Emergency Room DiversionsA Symptom of Hospitals under Stress
(2001) - et al.
Plan and Operation of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care SurveyVital Health Statistics 1, No.34
(1994) - et al.
A Reason for Visit Classification for Ambulatory CareVital and Health Statistics 2
(1979) International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification
(1998)SUDAAN (Release 9.0.1) [computer software]
(2005)
Cited by (172)
Equilibrium and efficiency in the first aid services market: The case of the emergency department of Sorrento
2022, Socio-Economic Planning SciencesFactors contributing to high turnover rates of emergency nurses: A review of the literature
2020, Australian Critical CareImpacts of an EMS Hospital Liaison Program on Ambulance Offload Times: A Preliminary Analysis
2022, Prehospital and Disaster MedicineManaging Occupancy Rates in a Hospital Emergency Department: Combining Model-Based and Model-Free Control Approaches
2023, Colloquium in Information Science and Technology, CIST
Supervising editor: Brent R. Asplin, MD, MPH
Author contributions: CB conceived the study. CB and LM designed the study. RV edited the data. CB, LM, and RV performed the analysis. CB and LM wrote the article. CB takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
Funding and support: The authors report this study did not receive any outside funding or support.