On another tread there was a brief off topic discussion about measuring the effectiveness of an EMS system.
It is my long held beleif that the future of EMS rests not with transporting to the hospital every patient who calls for help, but public health, public outreach, and providing an appropriate medical response and disposition which may or may not involve the ED (A&E)
I came to this crazy idea because I recognize the need for it. I also recognize that uner current US reimbursement policy, such efforts are not funded.
However, believing that a society that pays to increase its own health (even locally) sees an economic benefit, I speculate it would save considerable money.
The Scottish were kind enough to provide some numbers today to back up this theory.
http://www.emsresponder.com/article/article.jsp?id=14685&siteSection=1
"Last year 57,560 patients were dealt with under the "See and Treat" initiative used by the Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS) - up 8,332 (16.9 per cent) on the previous year.
Reducing the numbers going to A&E and being admitted to hospital is estimated to save the NHS around GBP13 million a year. But the SAS insisted that audits of the system showed it was not having a negative effect on patient care, and that those who needed hospital treatment were still taken to A&E."
For the noninternationally inclined that is a savings of $20,320,299.74 a year at today's exchange rate on 57,560 calls.
It works out to a savings of: $3530.27 per patient per year, if 16.9% of your patients could be treated/not transported or treated and released.
Given your current call volume or patient census, using those numbers as a base, how much would your agency be looking at?
It is my long held beleif that the future of EMS rests not with transporting to the hospital every patient who calls for help, but public health, public outreach, and providing an appropriate medical response and disposition which may or may not involve the ED (A&E)
I came to this crazy idea because I recognize the need for it. I also recognize that uner current US reimbursement policy, such efforts are not funded.
However, believing that a society that pays to increase its own health (even locally) sees an economic benefit, I speculate it would save considerable money.
The Scottish were kind enough to provide some numbers today to back up this theory.
http://www.emsresponder.com/article/article.jsp?id=14685&siteSection=1
"Last year 57,560 patients were dealt with under the "See and Treat" initiative used by the Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS) - up 8,332 (16.9 per cent) on the previous year.
Reducing the numbers going to A&E and being admitted to hospital is estimated to save the NHS around GBP13 million a year. But the SAS insisted that audits of the system showed it was not having a negative effect on patient care, and that those who needed hospital treatment were still taken to A&E."
For the noninternationally inclined that is a savings of $20,320,299.74 a year at today's exchange rate on 57,560 calls.
It works out to a savings of: $3530.27 per patient per year, if 16.9% of your patients could be treated/not transported or treated and released.
Given your current call volume or patient census, using those numbers as a base, how much would your agency be looking at?
Last edited by a moderator:
