Rural versus urban (yes again!)

mycrofft

Still crazy but elsewhere
Messages
11,322
Reaction score
49
Points
48
EMS and emergency/disaster resources away from cities (or in smaller isolated cities) tends to have fewer resources, longer response times and lower level of training than urban/suburban...true or false? Do people living in farming/ranching/logging etc areas "deserve" resources equal to urban, or is that their choice? Would it be pragmatic and logical to assume that there can be parity? (I would like to invite a Missouri disaster planner who addresses this subject to read our responses after a few days, so comb your hair!).

See thread
http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=10984&highlight=urban+versus+rural
 
Last edited by a moderator:
True for everything except that they have a lower level of training. My service is very rural. Is a paramedic service. Only highers degreed medics (min AAS).
 
It is impossible to offer the same levels of healthcare to people living in remote and sparsely populated areas. Greatest good for the greatest number.

If Johnny lumberjack wants to live in a remote area, with a hx of multiple M.Is and other cardiac problems, then Johnny lumberjack will probably be die from his next major cardiac event.

If people want quick and efficient access to top level health resources, they need to live in the big city areas.
 
Why not? While in most cases we may not get to them as quickly as some urban ambulances (because of distance traveled or terrain), which is even debatable depending on the city. I assure you we provide as high and likely higher levels of care (read: education) than them. Just because a service is rural does not mean it doesn't have highly qualified staff.
 
It is impossible to offer the same levels of healthcare to people living in remote and sparsely populated areas. Greatest good for the greatest number.

If Johnny lumberjack wants to live in a remote area, with a hx of multiple M.Is and other cardiac problems, then Johnny lumberjack will probably be die from his next major cardiac event.

If people want quick and efficient access to top level health resources, they need to live in the big city areas.

I agree to a point, but I don't think it is the greatest good for the greatest number of people or we would further reduce our services in rural and remote areas. Finding the appropriate balance is an issue that we struggle with in Canada and Australia especially. People living in our more remote areas accept some reduced access to healthcare, but the question is where that line should be drawn. Surely it shouldn't be that anyone who lives in the Northwest Territories or the Northern Territory gets no care. But they also can't reasonably expect to get the same care as someone in Toronto or Sydney, or at least not the same care as quickly or locally.

What if Johnny lumberjack were living in Darwin. Is it fair that he won't have access to PCI when he has his next MI?
 
What if Johnny lumberjack were living in Darwin. Is it fair that he won't have access to PCI when he has his next MI?

The humane thing is to not prolong the suffering of anyone living in Darwin.
 
rural has fewer units covering an area vs urban.

response times are typically longer, due to distance covered. increase reliance on local first responders as a result of this

increase use of helicopters in rural vs urban.

newbie medics who only work in the sticks tend to suck, because they don't have that many interactions with sick patients. experienced medics who end up working in the sticks after a busy career in the suburbs tend to be pretty good. urban medics occasionally suck because they don't get to do many interventions due to their proximity to the hospital, however they also see a lot of patients that don't actually need ALS care. Yes, I am painting with a broad brush, and generalizing, if it doesn't apply to you, than don't take offense. and yes, i know some excellent urban medics and horrible medics from the sticks.

as for who deserves what, it boils down to you get what you pay for.
 
rural has fewer units covering an area vs urban. .

Yet urban has less ambulances per capita than rural.

response times are typically longer, due to distance covered. increase reliance on local first responders as a result of this increase use of helicopters in rural vs urban.

Given comparable distances a rural response would actually be faster than urban because there are less obstructions in the wide open terrain.


newbie medics who only work in the sticks tend to suck, because they don't have that many interactions with sick patients. experienced medics who end up working in the sticks after a busy career in the suburbs tend to be pretty good. urban medics occasionally suck because they don't get to do many interventions due to their proximity to the hospital, however they also see a lot of patients that don't actually need ALS care. Yes, I am painting with a broad brush, and generalizing, if it doesn't apply to you, than don't take offense. and yes, i know some excellent urban medics and horrible medics from the sticks.

as for who deserves what, it boils down to you get what you pay for.

I can't fault any of the rest of this logic.
 
It does not happen in a vacumn.

EMS and emergency/disaster resources away from cities (or in smaller isolated cities) tends to have fewer resources, longer response times and lower level of training than urban/suburban...true or false? Do people living in farming/ranching/logging etc areas "deserve" resources equal to urban, or is that their choice? Would it be pragmatic and logical to assume that there can be parity? (I would like to invite a Missouri disaster planner who addresses this subject to read our responses after a few days, so comb your hair!).

See thread
http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=10984&highlight=urban+versus+rural

The bulk of the $ for the service would be raised by the people that live in the area the service serves.

People in rural or urban areas form an ambulance district.

Just like a school district.

The service has a board of directors. The people who own land in the area pay taxes to fund the service. The service decides if they recover revenue through billing patients or insurance or not at all. They decide if the employees will be paid or unpaid.

The general public in the area builds a consensus as to how much $ they put into it.

EXAMPLE: The fire service where I grew up, about 20 years ago, it was unpaid. The village held a referendum to decide if the fire service should offer members a pension (credited by the calls and meeting they attend). The community voted for it.

Bottom line, it is really up to the people that live in the area.
 
Bottom line, it is really up to the people that live in the area.

But is this the best way to do it?

Might it not be better to have a single state-wide (or even nation-wide) ambulance service, that can design a system where rural areas get better coverage? Perhaps a town that couldn't normally afford it (or wouldn't choose to), gets an ALS service, because there's no nearby ALS. Perhaps we put a helicopter somewhere where it isn't going to get the highest call volume, but is going to cover transport for people a long way away from anywhere else?

Just a thought.
 
No one ever seems to define rural. At what square milage and population density is an area determined to be rural, suburban, or urban?

There are areas of NJ that are often referred to as rural and, for sure, they are big and have a low density population relative to many other towns or counties (e.g. Salem and Sussex County, which are in 200 per square mile range), but then there are counties out west, such as most in Nevada that are thousands of square miles with an average pop density of 1-2 per sq. mile (and even much less). Clearly, the NJ counties will have much better EMS response times and access to hospitals than others (even though response times may be 20 minutes to some areas and transport times may be 30-45 minutes).

At some point, it will be far too costly to provide EMS on par with urban or suburban communities. Even for the not-too-rural rural areas of NJ, you are just not going to get an ambulance (never mind ALS) in 8:59 90% of the time. Probably not in 11:59 90% of the time. Doesn't mean you don't deserve EMS, just that, yes, you have to accept that if you live rurally, you will not get police, fire, or EMS in a period of time as you would in more populated areas. Its just a matter of physics and economics.
 
But is this the best way to do it?

Might it not be better to have a single state-wide (or even nation-wide) ambulance service, that can design a system where rural areas get better coverage? Perhaps a town that couldn't normally afford it (or wouldn't choose to), gets an ALS service, because there's no nearby ALS. Perhaps we put a helicopter somewhere where it isn't going to get the highest call volume, but is going to cover transport for people a long way away from anywhere else?

Just a thought.

In a perfect world, all public services would be equally acessible to all anywhere in the USA. However, this country has a long tradition of keeping things local.

There is no nationwide police, for example. There is not even a state or county wide uniformity. In many areas, there are town police and even within the town a village department.

I think it is ingrained in this society to have control over local affairs.

There are forces that have merged police deaprtments and school districts.

My version of the perfect world ?

Maybe uniformity of all services on a county level, but, its notup to me....
 
In rural areas.

I think they should try blending services.

People cross trained in Fire/LE/EMS. The training could include FTO programs in nearby urban areas.

Sort of the same way forest rangers deal with all emergenices.
 
In those areas not as many calls, so cross train the responders.

Sort of like in a one room school house doing k-12 in the same room in a rural area but in a more populated area having several sections of each grade a separate elementary, middle and high schools (extrmem example but I know of k-12 buildings in some places).
 
In a general sense, I think we can all agree that:

1. You must do the best thing for the most number of people with the money that you have. To improve services, either you get more money (not the subject of this discussion), accept poor service to particular demographics (undesirable) or you look at improved models of service provision (see bellow).

2. Rural response times will always be longer to some extent than in the city. If your rural property is larger than a number of metropolitan suburbs combined, you simply will not be able to get an ambulance quite as fast as the 10000 people in the equivalent sized metro areas serviced by X number of ambulances. This is just a fact. Rich or bankrupt, vollies or no vollies, first aid cert or PhD. You can't change that.

What I've talked about bellow are some of the ways we try to better organize and spend those resources and that money that you do have. What actually constitutes the best for the most? How do you best spend your money so that the challenges of rural healthcare can be overcome?

A few thoughts:

Amalgamation
In terms of disaster planning, having multiple tiny agencies is a nightmare in every way. Resource balance, specialist equipment, communication, command and control, etc. If every county has its own air force, nobody could afford a $2 billion B2 bomber. But because they all get together and form the USA, they can. If you apply that idea to EMS and disaster management, there is no way every 2 ambulance rural volley company can afford emergency management communication infrastructure, mass casualty resource trucks, USAR, but 'Ambulance Service Missouri' can. If there is a mass casualty event in a remote area here, it is monitored by the emergency management division of our state ambulance service. There is then a standardized grid by which disasters are evaluated that dictates the levels of response and coordination. The entire state's resources of some 2500 paramedics can be readjusted not only to deal with the MCI, but to continue to provide everyday services to the rest of the state. Regional managers can be dispatched to control resources on the ground. Specialist vehicles from the capital city can be dispatched with CBR gear, USAR gear or support vehicles equipped with enough supplies for 200 pts to all around the state along with mobile communication centres. This is all controlled through the Ambulance Emergency Operation Centre which is a super awesome room with lots of NASA style mission control screens and tables and people who know stuff about stuff. This is ultimately part of an overall state emergency health plan coordinating Ambulance and hospital response to disasters. Its not just "the big one" that never happens either. MCIs of various kinds happen every day somewhere in the state and the escalation grid is relatively well tested. You cannot do this when EMS is so fragmented organisationally and with so many differences in training, scope, professionalism etc.

http://www.ambulance.vic.gov.au/Amb...nagement/Emergency-Management-Department.html

Not to be forgotten is the aftermath. The very successful peer support system and Victorian Ambulance Counselling Unit look after us all, and our families (because our spouses and children can suffer from our trauma as well). These simply aren't systems you can have as part of a smaller service.

Other Agencies
Police and fire should get involved in medical first response in rural areas. We don't have any of the territorial issues US EMS has with fire and police, simply because of our education standards. If EMS requires a 100 hour certificate, why not just cross train police and fire with an EMT cert? Kinda makes EMTs useless (as if they weren't already). But when it takes 4 years to become a qualified paramedic and 7, at an absolute minimum, to rise to Intensive Care, the fire brigade is welcome to get their 100 hour advanced first aid cert. They're no threat to us, in fact we train and oversee the MFR program. They don't wanna be paramedics, we don't wanna be firefighters and mostly everyone gets along.

Volunteers
We currently have a lot volunteer Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTS) in rural areas that fill the gaps in response times. We have none of the volly issues as in the US. Firstly CERT teams are only dispatched to life threatening emergencies when response times might actually matter and cannot transport (they drive SUVs) and are always backed by ALS. Their job is to turn up early and apply a few basic modalities to keep people alive until ALS arrive. Embarrassingly for US EMTs, even our lowest level of volly FR, has more training, better clinical over-site and in many cases a greater scope of practice (AED, O2, Epipen, Albuterol, Glucose paste, Methoxyflurane analgesic, ASA, Nitro) than their US counterparts. Their training and ongoing clinical mentoring is overseen by the state service; no cowboy volly "rescue squads" here. The program seems to have been quite successful.

Just some food for thought. I'll post a little more if anything pops into my head. I also have a bit of literature about overcoming the challenges of rural prehospital care if you're interested :)
 
Don't remember who posted/replied this, but a retort:

1. More ambulances per capita in rural: I'd have to see some studies on that, it may be so, but even so my experience in rural Nebraska did not bear that out IF you were considering ambulances stationed per square mile/response time (we'd roar out of Lincoln to places like Emerald etc. miles and miles away).

2. Faster response time in rural due to low traffic: again, my experience in Nebraska (winter weather/roads not maintained), California's San Bernardino Mts (twisty narrow roads), and both plus Mojave Desert (roads don't take direct lines to where you have to go)all lend to extended response times, and responders getting lost or stuck.

But good points to discuss! My experience is anecdotal.
This is a really good post, thanks for the responses so far.
 
Has anyone mentioned.

Rural areas need more hospitals with ER's as well.

Sometimes it is not so much the # of ambulances, but the distance they need to go.

I think federal subsidies could help there.

It is of benefit to all to have more hospitals in outlying areas. In a mass casualty with people evacuated, it would be a place to get to.
 
Rural areas need more hospitals with ER's as well.

Sometimes it is not so much the # of ambulances, but the distance they need to go.

I think federal subsidies could help there.

It is of benefit to all to have more hospitals in outlying areas. In a mass casualty with people evacuated, it would be a place to get to.

Should hospital locations be based on hospitals/person or distance between hospitals?

How are you planning on actually financing these hospitals, as well as the other hospitals that are going to see a dip in patients? After all, federal subsidy is just a fancy way of saying, "We want everyone else to pay for us."

How are you going to maintain staffing levels if there is no demand?

If you choose to live out in the middle of no where, part of that deal is a decrease in the availability of services simply due to not having enough people to justify a higher availability of service.
 
In those areas not as many calls, so cross train the responders.

Sort of like in a one room school house doing k-12 in the same room in a rural area but in a more populated area having several sections of each grade a separate elementary, middle and high schools (extrmem example but I know of k-12 buildings in some places).

But again, why?

What's the benefit? Is the goal to save money?

Are we taking volunteer firefighter positions and turning them into paid positions? Can we make a competent firefighter-paramedic-police officer -- someone who is truely able to do all 3 jobs well? How do we define roles at multiple-agency scenes? If there's a bad highway wreck, who plays firefighter today, who plays cop, who plays paramedic? How do we organise resources if there's a major event? At what point do we say, hey, enough of you guys are doing fire suppression, we need to keep some people as LEOs, or EMS?

Just wondering. My gut is that that it's going to take an awful lot of training to make someone competent in all three roles, and a lot of con-ed, and that this alone might make the idea undesirable.
 
Back
Top