Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T00:25:38.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anglo-American vs. Franco-German Emergency Medical Services System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Wolfgang F. Dick
Wolfgang F. Dick*
Affiliation:
Clinic of Anesthesiology-University Hospital, Mainz, Germany
*
Clinic of Anesthesiology-University Hospital, Langenbeckstr. 1 D 55131, Mainz, Germany, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been stated that the Franco-German Emergency Medical Services System (FGS) has considerable drawbacks compared to the Anglo-American Emergency Medical Services System (AAS):

1. The key differences between the AAS and the FGS are that in the AAS, the patients is brought to the doctor, while in the FGS, the doctor is brought to the patient.

2. In the FGS, patients with urgent conditions usually are evaluated and treated by general practitioners in their offices or at the patient`s home; initially, very few approach an emergency department.

3. Emergency patients with life-threatening trauma or disease are treated by emergency physicians at the scene and during transport. Paramedics often are first to arrive at the scene, and until the emergency physician arrives at the scene, are allowed to defibrillate, to intubate endotracheal-ly, and to administer life-saving drugs (epinephrine endotracheally, glucose intravenously, etc.).

4. Prehospital emergency physicians treat patients at the scene and during transport.

5. Emergency patients are guaranteed to be reached by an appropriate emergency vehicle and a respective crew within 10 minutes in 80% of the responses and within 15 minutes in 95% of cases.

6. The FGS deploys qualified emergency physicians assisted by qualified paramedics as prehospital intensive care providers; extended immediate care is standard. Total Prehospital Times (TPT) and scene times only are minimally longer than in the AAS.

7. Emergency Medicine is recognized as a supra-specialty to the base specialties. Specific training programs exist for emergency physicians, medical directors of emergency medical services systems (EMSS), and chief emergency physicians (CEP).

8. Resuscitation attempts are carried out not only by anesthesiologists, but also by internists, surgeons, pediatricians, etc. Emergency medicine encompasses cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and shock cases, and patients with an acute myocardial infarction, stroke, poly-trauma, status asthmaticus, etc. Emergency patients are admitted directly to emergency departments of the hospitals, which, depending upon the size of the hospital.

9. The incidence of life-threatening trauma victims has decreased to <10% in the FGS. Of a total of 830,000 deaths/year, fatal trauma cases ranked the lowest at 4%.

10. Survival figures on cardiac arrest (asystole, ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia (VF/VT), pulseless electrical activity (PEA), etc.) reported in the German EMSS correspond to those in Europe and the United States.

11. Paramedic training is characterized by a two-year program followed by a theoretical and a practical examination.

12. Paramedics and emergency physicians-in-training are supervised at the scene and during transport. Quality assurance (Q/A) constitutes an integral and legally compulsory part of the EMSS.

13. In the majority of cases, the emergency patients are evaluated and treated by the respective specialties without delays caused by patient transfer to other hospitals.

14. The FGS does not require a greater number of ambulances and/or personnel than does the AAS.

15. The German healthcare system creates less expenses/ capita than the does the U.S. system at a similar level of quality of care.

16. Emergency procedures are carried out by anesthesiologists, emergency physicians, surgeons, internists, and other specialists.

Keywords

Anglo-Americanemergency medical services systememergency physicianFranco-Germanparamedicprehospital carequality management training
Type
Special Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2003 , pp. 29 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

1.Holliman, J: International Development of Emergency Medicine. Lecture at the 1st International Congress of the Polish Society for Emergency Medicine: Emergency Medicine in Middle and Eastern Europe; Wroclaw, Poland. 13–16 September, 2000.Google Scholar
2.Arnold, JL: International emergency medicine and the recent development of emergency medicine worldwide. Ann Emerg Med 1999; 33: 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Dick, WF: Efficacy of prehospital patient care (German) Notfallmedizin 1996; 45: 75–87.Google Scholar
4.Hennes, HJ, Reinhardt, T, Otto, S, Dick, W: The efficacy of emergency physician prehospital care: A prospective evaluation (German). Anaesthesist 1993; 42: 455–461.Google Scholar
5.Mann, N: Assessing the effectiveness and optimal structure of trauma systems: A consensus among experts. J Trauma 1999; 47: S69–S74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Sampalis, JS, Lavoie, A, Salas, M, Nikolis, A, Williams, JI: Determinants of on-scene time in injured patients treated by physicians at the site. Prehosp Disast Med 1994; 9: 178–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Liberman, M, Mulder, D, Sampalis, J: Advanced or basic life support for trauma: Meta-analysis and critical review of the literature. J Trauma 2000: 49: 584–599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Spaite, DW, Criss, EA, Valenzuela, TD, Meislin, HW: Prehospital advanced life support for major trauma: Critical need for clinical trials. Ann Emerg Med 1998; 32: 480–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Bissel, RA, Eslinger, DG, Zimmerman, L: The efficacy of advanced life support: A review of the literature. Prehosp Disast Med 1998; 13: 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Herlitz, J, Bahr, J, Fischer, M, Kuisma, M, Lexow, K, Thorgeirsson, G: Resuscitation in Europe: A tale of five European regions. Resuscitation 1999; 41: 121–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Cummins, RO, Chamberlain, DA, and the Utstein Group: Recommended guidelines for uniform reporting of data from out of hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation 1991; 84: 960–975.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Spaite, DW, Valenzuela, TD, Meislin, HW, Criss, EA, Hinsberg, P: Prospective validation of a new model for evaluation of emergency medical services systems by in field observation of specific time intervals in prehospital care. Ann Emerg Med 1993; 22: 638–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Pepe, PE, Wyatt, ChH, Bickel, WH, Mailey, ML, Mattox, K: The relationship between total prehospital time and outcome in hypotensive victims of penetrating injuries. Ann Emer Med 1987; 16: 293–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Schmidt, U, Frame, SB, Nerlich, ML, Rowe, DW, Enderson, BL, Naull, KI, Tscherne, H: On scene helicopter transport of patients with multiple injuries: Comparison of a German and an American system. J Trauma 1992; 33: 548–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Lechleuthner, A, Emermann, C, Dauber, A, Boullion, B, Kubincanek, JA: Evolution of rescue systems: A comparison between Cologne and Cleveland. Prehosp Disast Med 1994; 9(3): 193–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Suttcliffe, AJ: Trauma critical care: How much does it really cost? Trauma Care 1998; ITACCS: 72–77.Google Scholar
17.Rösch, M, Klose, T, Leidl, R, Gebhard, F, Kinzl, L, Ebinger, T: Cost analysis of the care of poly-traumatized patients (German). Unfallchirurg 2000; 103: 632–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Katz, SH, Falk, JL: Misplaced endotracheal tubes by paramedics in an urban emergency medical services system. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 37: 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Frankel, H, Rozycki, G, Champion, H, Harvie., JD, Bass, R: The use of TRISS methodology to validate prehospital intubation by urban EMS providers. Am J Emer Med 1997; 15: 630–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Murray, JA, Demetriades, D, Berne, TV, Stratton, SJ, Cryer, HG, Bongard, F, Fleming, A, Gaspard, D: Prehospital intubation in patients with severe head injury. J Trauma 2000; 49: 1065–1070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Pace, SA, Fuller, FP, Dahlgren, TJ: Paramedic decisions with placement of out-of-hospital intravenous lines. Am J Emerg Med 1999; 17: 544–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Pfenniger, EG, Lindner, K: Arterial blood gases in patients with acute head injury at the accident site and upon hospital admission. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1991; 35: 148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Sayre, MR, Sakles, J, Mistler, A, Evand, J, Kramer, A, Pancioli, AM: Teaching basic EMTs endotracheal intubation: Can basic EMTs discriminate between endotracheal and esophageal intubation? Prehosp Disast Med 1994; 9: 234–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Schüttler, J, Schmitz, B, Bartsch, AC, Fischer, M: Evaluation of the efficiency of emergency physicians treating patients with brain-and polytrauma (German). Anästhesist 1995; 44: 850–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

1.Platz, B, Bey, T, Walter, FG: International report: Current state and development of health care insurance in emergency medicine in Germany. The influence of health insurance laws on the practice of emergency medicine in a European Country. J Emerg Med 2003; 25(2): 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar