MEASURING THE EMS PATIENT ACCESS TIME INTERVAL andTHE IMPACT OF RESPONDING TO HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To measure the patient access time interval and characterize its contribution to the total emergency medical services (EMS) response time interval; to compare the patient access time intervals for patients located three or more floors above ground with those less than three floors above or below ground, and specifically in the apartment subgroup; and to identify barriers that significantly impede EMS access to patients in high-rise apartments. METHODS: An observational study of all patients treated by an emergency medical technician paramedics (EMT-P) crew was conducted using a trained independent observer to collect time intervals and identify potential barriers to access. RESULTS: Of 118 observed calls, 25 (21%) originated from patients three or more floors above ground. The overall median and 90th percentile (95% confidence interval) patient access time intervals were 1.61 (1.27, 1.91) and 3.47 (3.08, 4.05) minutes, respectively. The median interval was 2.73 (2.22, 3.03) minutes among calls from patients located three or more stories above ground compared with 1.25 (1.07, 1.55) minutes among those at lower levels. The patient access time interval represented 23.5% of the total EMS response time interval among calls originating less than three floors above or below ground and 32.2% of those located three or more stories above ground. The most frequently encountered barriers to access included security code entry requirements, lack of directional signs, and inability to fit the stretcher into the elevator. CONCLUSIONS: The patient access time interval is significantly long and represents a substantial component of the total EMS response time interval, especially among ambulance calls originating three or more floors above ground. A number of barriers appear to contribute to delayed paramedic access.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".