EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES PERFORMANCE MEASURES

1 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES PERFORMANCE MEASURESRECOMMENDED ATTRIBUTES AND INDICATORS FOR SYSTEM AND SERVICE PERFORMANCED ecember 2009 This publication is distributed by the Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

2 The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or of ContentsExecutive Summary ..1 Introduction ..1 PERFORMANCE Indicator/Attribute Format ..2 PERFORMANCE measure Categories ..4 Recommended MEASURES ..4 Appendix Project Steering Committee List.

3 34iiSummary of MeasuresMeasure Type and ID NumberMeasurePageAttribute (S) EMERGENCY MEDICAL Dispatch Type5 Attribute (S) EMERGENCY MEDICAL Dispatch Impact on Response Mode6 Attribute (S) EMERGENCY MEDICAL Dispatch Impact on Response Level6 Indicator (HR) INTERIMA nnual Turnover Rate7 Indicators (CC) and (CC) Average Defibrillation Time 90th Percentile Defibrillation Time8 Indicators (CC) and (CC) Average Initial Rhythm Analysis Time 90th Percentile Initial Rhythm Analysis Time9 Indicator 5(CC) INTERIMM ajor Trauma Triage to Trauma Center Rate10 Indicators (CC), (CC), and (CC) Pain Relief Rate Pain Worsened Rate Pain Unchanged Rate13 Indicator (CC) PARKEDPain Intervention Rate15 Indicator 7(CC)12 Lead PERFORMANCE Rate16 Indicator 8(CC)Aspirin Administration for Chest Pain/Discomfort Rate17 Indicator 9(CC) INTERIMST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) Triage to Specialty Center Rate18 Indicators (R) and (R)

4 Mean EMERGENCY Patient Response interval 90th Percentile EMERGENCY Response Interval19 Indicators (R) and (R) Mean EMERGENCY Scene interval 90th Percentile EMERGENCY Scene Interval20 Indicators (R) and (R) Mean EMERGENCY Transport interval 90th Percentile EMERGENCY Transport Interval21 Indicator 11(F) PARKEDPer Capita Agency Operating Expense22 Indicator 12(Q) PARKEDP atient Care Satisfaction Rate23 Indicator 13(Q)Patient Care Satisfaction Survey Rate25 Indicator 14(Q)Rate of Appropriate Oxygen Use26 Indicator 15(Q)Undetected Esophageal Intubation Rate27 Indicator (Q)Delay-Causing Crash Rate per 1,000 EMS Responses28 Indicator (Q)EMS Crash Rate per 100,000 Fleet Miles29 Indicators (Q) and (Q) EMS Crash Injury Rate per 100,000 Fleet Miles EMS Crash Death Rate per 100,000 Fleet Miles30 Attributes (CD) and (CD) Call Complaint Distribution Call Complaint Rate31 Indicators (CC) and (CC)

5 EMS Cardiac Arrest Survival Rate to ED Discharge EMS Cardiac Arrest Survival Rate to Hospital Discharge321 EMS PERFORMANCE MEASURES : Recommended MEASURES for System and Service PerformanceExecutive SummaryThe EMS PERFORMANCE MEASURES Project, begun in 2002 and concluded in 2007, gives the Nation s EMS community an additional tool to gauge and report various aspects of an EMS system including the environment in which EMS responds, the PERFORMANCE of EMERGENCY MEDICAL service (EMS) agencies, and the overall PERFORMANCE of local systems.

6 We recognize that many EMS PERFORMANCE MEASURES existed at the beginning of this project and that oth-ers evolved in many geographic, sponsor-specific, and specialty areas during its course . So, for some, this tool may offer enhancement to their current measurement criteria by estab-lishing common MEASURES nationwide while, for others, it may offer a mechanism to begin measurement in their local jurisdictions . The goals of the project, addressed in two distinct phases, were to determine whether the country s EMS leadership desired a common set of specifically defined MEASURES and, if so, what those MEASURES would be.

7 The answer to the first was yes . This project report offers 35 consensus-based MEASURES that addresses the second . Each measure is presented in a format comparable with formats used elsewhere in the healthcare system . It is anticipated that this will assist EMS providers and system leaders with future PERFORMANCE reporting , research, and reimbursement issues . The overall format, however, may be daunting to some readers, so they are encouraged to focus on the MEASURES portrayed along with the formulas and data elements necessary to implement them.

8 The MEASURES are presented as they evolved and are in no specific order or priority . The MEASURES are however categorized by characteristic or operational area (e .g ., finance and funding and response ) for general quick reference purposes . Finally, 3 of the 35 MEASURES are parked for future development .Local EMS agencies and systems are encouraged to begin using some type of EMS perfor-mance MEASURES to evaluate and benchmark their own systems . They may choose these or other PERFORMANCE MEASURES customary to the industry.

9 Once baseline MEASURES are estab-lished in local systems, then comparative reports can be delivered according to a timeline determined by system leaders . These reports will be useful in making necessary system changes and assuring quality service to the public .Introduction By 2002, a number of PERFORMANCE measurement initiatives were being discussed or devel-oped in the United States, but there existed little if any coordinated efforts among these . In 2002, the National Association of State EMS Directors (now the National Association of State EMS Officials, NASEMSO) and the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) held a leadership forum sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Health Resources and SERVICES Administration to discuss this.

10 Specifically, they sought to determine if there was interest among the national EMS leadership groups in attendance to develop a nationwide set of common PERFORMANCE MEASURES geared to the 2evolving national prehospital dataset . The answer was unequivocally positive and the meet-ing created momentum to seek funding in 2003 for such an initiative . In September 2004 the EMS PERFORMANCE MEASURES Project Steering Committee (see Appendix) met and suggested over 100 PERFORMANCE questions to be considered for trim-ming and formatting to a top 25 PERFORMANCE indicators or attributes to ultimately be recommended by the project.