• D Jaslow, J A Barbera, E Johnson, and W Moore.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. djaslow@nimbus.ocis.temple.edu
• Prehosp Emerg Care. 1998 Jan 1;2(1):18-22.

Objectives1) To describe characteristics of patient transport protocols in those U.S. cities that sanction EMS-initiated refusal of transport; and 2) to describe the frequency and type of alternatives to emergency ambulance transport.MethodsEMS systems in every one of the 200 largest cities in the United States were surveyed by telephone regarding EMS-initiated refusal policies, involvement of physicians in the decision-making process, and the presence or absence of alternatives to EMS transport.Results100% of the target population responded to the telephone survey. Only 34 (17%) EMS systems have written protocols that allow EMS providers to refuse emergency ambulance transport for patients judged to have minor illness or injury after examination. Twenty-one (62%) of these EMS systems do not require on-line physician approval for EMS-initiated refusals. Seven (21%) EMS systems that allow refusal of transport also have a formalized alternative transport program in place. Nationwide, only 19 (10%) cities surveyed offer some type of alternative to ambulance transport, most commonly taxi and minivan.ConclusionThe authors report the first national survey of EMS-initiated refusal practices. Few urban EMS systems have implemented this policy to decrease utilization by persons with low-acuity illness or injury. This may be related to the fact that few EMS systems currently have alternatives to emergency ambulance transport.

13 keywords...

hide…