- Email: [email protected]
EMS as an Essential Public Safety Service
POLICY STATEMENTS
Policy Statements Policy statements and clinical policies are the official policies of the American College of Emergency Physicians and, as such, are not subject to the same peer review process as articles appearing in the journal. Policy statements and clinical policies of ACEP do not necessarily reflect the policies and beliefs of Annals of Emergency Medicine and its editors. Patient Satisfaction Surveys Approved by the ACEP Board of Directors September 2010 EMS as an Essential Public Safety Service Revised and approved by the ACEP Board of Directors September 2010 Originally approved by the ACEP Board of Directors August 2003 Role of Poison Centers in Emergency Health Care, Preparedness, and Response Reaffirmed by the ACEP Board of Directors October 2006 Revised and approved by the ACEP Board of Directors titled, “Role of Poison Centers in Emergency Health Care, Preparedness, and Response” September 2010 Revised and approved by the ACEP Board of Directors March 2000 Originally approved by the ACEP Board of Directors titled, “Poison Information and Treatment Systems” September 1995
0196-0644/$-see front matter Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Emergency Physicians.
Patient Satisfaction Surveys [Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:313.] The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) recognizes that patient satisfaction surveys that are methodologically and statistically sound can be a valid measure of the patient’s perception of health care value and that patient outcome can be related to perceived patient satisfaction. Patient satisfaction survey tools should be: ● Standardized and validated for the average education level of those being surveyed. ● Administered and tabulated as close to the date of service as possible. ● A measure of the specific components of service received in the emergency department with discreet data points. ● Based on a statistically valid sample size free from selection bias. ● Transparent in the administration and analysis methodologies. ● Explicit in the intended purpose and use. Due to the difficulty in segregating whether patient satisfaction scores are a result of physician performance or due to demands and restrictions of the current health care system or Volume , . : March
other factors out of the control of the physician, patient satisfaction methods that have not been validated should not be used for purposes such as credentialing, contract renewal, and incentive bonus programs. ACEP recommends that the topic of patient satisfaction measurement be incorporated into the Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine. Approved by the ACEP Board of Directors September 2010 doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.11.017
EMS as an Essential Public Safety Service [Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:313.] The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) believes that Emergency Medical Service (EMS) is an essential public safety service. EMS plays an indispensible role in every community’s emergency response system and forms a critical component of the nation’s disaster response infrastructure. All EMS systems must be capable of addressing the daily needs for effective out-of-hospital emergency medical response. An effective EMS system is also essential in any plan to mitigate and respond to the medical consequences of a disaster and other public health events, whether natural or man-made. As the Annals of Emergency Medicine 313
Policy Statements newest of the three primary public safety services, EMS joins with fire and police to maintain healthy, safe, and secure communities. EMS, fire, and police together form a triad of critical services requiring national and community support and funding. Public health systems protect the community through disease prevention, surveillance, and response. EMS holds a special position at the intersection of public health, health care, and public safety. Cooperation and integration of EMS and public health not only provides an essential infrastructure for daily response, but also can improve a community’s preparedness and response to acts of terrorism as well as other identified public health needs. Strong leadership and appropriate and consistent funding is essential to ensure the viability, effectiveness and sustainability of public safety and public health systems. In particular, funding for EMS must address the multiple roles that EMS plays in the community and be sufficient to ensure an effective response not only in daily operations, but also in disasters, and other public health crises. ACEP calls on the key stakeholders (local, state, and federal governments and private organizations) to support a unified effort to improve EMS funding and further calls for unified oversight of all aspects of EMS at the federal level. Revised and approved by the ACEP Board of Directors September 2010 Originally approved by the ACEP Board of Directors August 2003 doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.11.018
Role of Poison Centers in Emergency Health Care, Preparedness, and Response [Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:314.] The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) strongly supports the availability of high-quality, fully funded, certified poison centers to provide:
314 Annals of Emergency Medicine
●
Triage and management of poisoning calls from the public, saving medical expenditures for unnecessary health care visits while referring patients appropriately when medical evaluation is needed, as well as mitigating overcrowding of emergency departments. ● Consultation to physicians and other health care providers in the diagnosis and management of poisoning cases. ● Preparedness and response services to emergency responders, health care providers, public health officials, and the public during pandemics, public health emergencies and other hazards events, including chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear incidents. ● Data surveillance to detect and monitor disease outbreaks and epidemiological trends. ACEP supports the availability of evidence-based poison center triage/management services and prevention policies through legislative and regulatory advocacy at the local, state and national levels. Emergency physicians have a unique opportunity and responsibility to work with stakeholders to reduce the prevalence and impact of poisonings through advocacy, education and research initiatives. Revised and approved by the ACEP Board of Directors titled, “Role of Poison Centers in Emergency Health Care, Preparedness, and Response” September 2010 Reaffirmed by the ACEP Board of Directors October 2006 Revised and approved by the ACEP Board of Directors March 2000 Originally approved by the ACEP Board of Directors titled, “Poison Information and Treatment Systems” September 1995 doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.11.019
Volume , . : March
Policy Statements Policy statements and clinical policies are the official policies of the American College of Emergency Physicians and, as such, are not subject to the same peer review process as articles appearing in the journal. Policy statements and clinical policies of ACEP do not necessarily reflect the policies and beliefs of Annals of Emergency Medicine and its editors. Patient Satisfaction Surveys Approved by the ACEP Board of Directors September 2010 EMS as an Essential Public Safety Service Revised and approved by the ACEP Board of Directors September 2010 Originally approved by the ACEP Board of Directors August 2003 Role of Poison Centers in Emergency Health Care, Preparedness, and Response Reaffirmed by the ACEP Board of Directors October 2006 Revised and approved by the ACEP Board of Directors titled, “Role of Poison Centers in Emergency Health Care, Preparedness, and Response” September 2010 Revised and approved by the ACEP Board of Directors March 2000 Originally approved by the ACEP Board of Directors titled, “Poison Information and Treatment Systems” September 1995
0196-0644/$-see front matter Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Emergency Physicians.
Patient Satisfaction Surveys [Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:313.] The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) recognizes that patient satisfaction surveys that are methodologically and statistically sound can be a valid measure of the patient’s perception of health care value and that patient outcome can be related to perceived patient satisfaction. Patient satisfaction survey tools should be: ● Standardized and validated for the average education level of those being surveyed. ● Administered and tabulated as close to the date of service as possible. ● A measure of the specific components of service received in the emergency department with discreet data points. ● Based on a statistically valid sample size free from selection bias. ● Transparent in the administration and analysis methodologies. ● Explicit in the intended purpose and use. Due to the difficulty in segregating whether patient satisfaction scores are a result of physician performance or due to demands and restrictions of the current health care system or Volume , . : March
other factors out of the control of the physician, patient satisfaction methods that have not been validated should not be used for purposes such as credentialing, contract renewal, and incentive bonus programs. ACEP recommends that the topic of patient satisfaction measurement be incorporated into the Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine. Approved by the ACEP Board of Directors September 2010 doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.11.017
EMS as an Essential Public Safety Service [Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:313.] The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) believes that Emergency Medical Service (EMS) is an essential public safety service. EMS plays an indispensible role in every community’s emergency response system and forms a critical component of the nation’s disaster response infrastructure. All EMS systems must be capable of addressing the daily needs for effective out-of-hospital emergency medical response. An effective EMS system is also essential in any plan to mitigate and respond to the medical consequences of a disaster and other public health events, whether natural or man-made. As the Annals of Emergency Medicine 313
Policy Statements newest of the three primary public safety services, EMS joins with fire and police to maintain healthy, safe, and secure communities. EMS, fire, and police together form a triad of critical services requiring national and community support and funding. Public health systems protect the community through disease prevention, surveillance, and response. EMS holds a special position at the intersection of public health, health care, and public safety. Cooperation and integration of EMS and public health not only provides an essential infrastructure for daily response, but also can improve a community’s preparedness and response to acts of terrorism as well as other identified public health needs. Strong leadership and appropriate and consistent funding is essential to ensure the viability, effectiveness and sustainability of public safety and public health systems. In particular, funding for EMS must address the multiple roles that EMS plays in the community and be sufficient to ensure an effective response not only in daily operations, but also in disasters, and other public health crises. ACEP calls on the key stakeholders (local, state, and federal governments and private organizations) to support a unified effort to improve EMS funding and further calls for unified oversight of all aspects of EMS at the federal level. Revised and approved by the ACEP Board of Directors September 2010 Originally approved by the ACEP Board of Directors August 2003 doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.11.018
Role of Poison Centers in Emergency Health Care, Preparedness, and Response [Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:314.] The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) strongly supports the availability of high-quality, fully funded, certified poison centers to provide:
314 Annals of Emergency Medicine
●
Triage and management of poisoning calls from the public, saving medical expenditures for unnecessary health care visits while referring patients appropriately when medical evaluation is needed, as well as mitigating overcrowding of emergency departments. ● Consultation to physicians and other health care providers in the diagnosis and management of poisoning cases. ● Preparedness and response services to emergency responders, health care providers, public health officials, and the public during pandemics, public health emergencies and other hazards events, including chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear incidents. ● Data surveillance to detect and monitor disease outbreaks and epidemiological trends. ACEP supports the availability of evidence-based poison center triage/management services and prevention policies through legislative and regulatory advocacy at the local, state and national levels. Emergency physicians have a unique opportunity and responsibility to work with stakeholders to reduce the prevalence and impact of poisonings through advocacy, education and research initiatives. Revised and approved by the ACEP Board of Directors titled, “Role of Poison Centers in Emergency Health Care, Preparedness, and Response” September 2010 Reaffirmed by the ACEP Board of Directors October 2006 Revised and approved by the ACEP Board of Directors March 2000 Originally approved by the ACEP Board of Directors titled, “Poison Information and Treatment Systems” September 1995 doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.11.019
Volume , . : March