Save rate data

[dr-exmedic]

Anyone have any good links to save rate data? My searches on teh Internets haven't really hit any good links; the best I came up with was JAMA. 2008;300(12):1423-1431 (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/12/1423), but at least it's solid data and fairly recent even though it only covers a handful of cites and a couple whole states. I also have the link to the big USA Today spread about EMS, but it's 6 years old now.

[DaSharkie]

Anyone have any good links to save rate data? My searches on teh Internets haven't really hit any good links; the best I came up with was JAMA. 2008;300(12):1423-1431 (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/12/1423), but at least it's solid data and fairly recent even though it only covers a handful of cites and a couple whole states. I also have the link to the big USA Today spread about EMS, but it's 6 years old now.

Well, you know as well as I do, that there is not even a consensus as to what a "save" truly is. Seems like every study has a different goal line to use for a save.

If you know someone with a subscription to Emergency Medicine Abstracts, you can research every study about it going back to the mid-1970s when they started doing their reviews of the literature.

[VentMedic]

Just a quick search at

http://scholar.google.com

came up with this:


http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=prehospital+cardiac+arrests+outcomes&hl=en&lr=


You might also try

Resuscitation Journal
http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/

NAEMSP also has ongoing research and occasionally publish their findings either on their website or in their journal.

http://www.naemsp.org/

http://www.naemsp.org/publications.html

The outcomes and what one might consider a "save" can be very different.

[dr-exmedic]

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. I'm specifically looking for any given resource that compares several cities in the same manner. The two I listed above (one JAMA, one USA Today) are about the best such data I've seen yet. Searches mostly give me a whole bunch of articles about one community at a time, which isn't really helpful. Just getting impatient with being on page 30 of a search result and finding nothing.... :)

I'm actually reduced to (gasp!) trolling through the references in the JAMA article.... I found an awesome title, "Cardiac arrest and resuscitation: a tale of 29 cities," and got disappointed when I read the date, 1990.

[croaker260]

Well, you know as well as I do, that there is not even a consensus as to what a "save" truly is. Seems like every study has a different goal line to use for a save.

If you know someone with a subscription to Emergency Medicine Abstracts, you can research every study about it going back to the mid-1970s when they started doing their reviews of the literature.

I would add that the definition of a "save" isnt the only thing no one can agree on, Dispatch intervals, definitiion o the ETT attempts, etc et are all variable, though the people (agencies) opposing true reform seem to be the same.... Hmmmmmm

NEMSIS is making strides though, evne though a certain segment of our industry is slow in adopting it.

[DaSharkie]

I would add that the definition of a "save" isnt the only thing no one can agree on, Dispatch intervals, definitiion o the ETT attempts, etc et are all variable, though the people (agencies) opposing true reform seem to be the same.... Hmmmmmm

NEMSIS is making strides though, evne though a certain segment of our industry is slow in adopting it.

*cough* *cough* and just whom might you be indicating here croaker? ;)

[dr-exmedic]

Thanks for helping, all. This all stems from a YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl-rO6RGVCk) promoting fire-based EMS. Most of it is a touch irksome--they claim many attributes as unique to fire-based EMS when they actually aren't--and the sort of stuff that I would normally hardly notice, let alone be nauseated over. Then the narrator claims that fire-based EMS has a "documented" higher cardiac arrest save rate than non-fire-based EMS. Since the kindest thing I can say about this is that such a statement is not supported by the evidence, I threw together a response video because I couldn't let that one go.

I will concede my mild bias against fire-based EMS. I will point out my much larger, overriding bias against statements that make me pull out the boots because it's getting deep....

[croaker260]

Thanks for helping, all. This all stems from a YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl-rO6RGVCk) promoting fire-based EMS. Most of it is a touch irksome--they claim many attributes as unique to fire-based EMS when they actually aren't--and the sort of stuff that I would normally hardly notice, let alone be nauseated over. Then the narrator claims that fire-based EMS has a "documented" higher cardiac arrest save rate than non-fire-based EMS. Since the kindest thing I can say about this is that such a statement is not supported by the evidence, I threw together a response video because I couldn't let that one go.

I will concede my mild bias against fire-based EMS. I will point out my much larger, overriding bias against statements that make me pull out the boots because it's getting deep....



Well if there is anything I can do to help fight the Red JiHad, let me know.

[DaSharkie]

Then the narrator claims that fire-based EMS has a "documented" higher cardiac arrest save rate than non-fire-based EMS. Since the kindest thing I can say about this is that such a statement is not supported by the evidence, I threw together a response video because I couldn't let that one go.

This is freaking laughable. I will watch the video further in a bit, but I just could not believe that the video begins by stating that 90% of people are treated by fire service based EMS organizations...........I can only hope that the organization was including first responder agencies because otherwise this is a complete and total ration of crap.

As for substantiation for the statement that fire service based EMS is better or provides better care, I doubt that there is any great peer-based reviewed literature that actually supports this, or there would have been a whole boat load of we're better than you from the IAFF and IAFC.

Then again, I rarely - if ever, see the IAFF or IAFC even acknowledge the literature showing that there is no benefit to have 8,000 Paramedics serving a population of 50,000 people. So why should we expect anything different on this matter.

[DaSharkie]

So I finally got to review the video in its entiret and I must say that the IAFF, IAFC, NFPA, and the two other organizations that paid for this little propaganda piece could have done a lot better for their money.

Obviously this video is made for the dumb among our elected officials that can be easily misled.

Like you ex-medic, I would really love to see the evidence that the producers and financers use to substantiate that fire-service based care is a better service model that provides better care than any other.

[dr-exmedic]

Well if there is anything I can do to help fight the Red JiHad, let me know.
Well, if you have a blog or website, feel free to link to my response:

http://blog.dr-exmedic.com/2009/05/04/fire-based-ems-and-you/

Thanks. :)
This is freaking laughable. I will watch the video further in a bit, but I just could not believe that the video begins by stating that 90% of people are treated by fire service based EMS organizations...........I can only hope that the organization was including first responder agencies because otherwise this is a complete and total ration of crap.
I figure it has to include FRs (there's just no other way), but I searched for that stat too and I'm not sure where they're getting it--frankly, I don't really know that anyone fully understands the totality of EMS in North America. I'm sure that if you carefully parse everything they say, there aren't many provable lies within there--misleading statements, plenty, assertions with little data behind them, yes, but few provably false statements.