An under-developed and fragmented prehospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system is a major obstacle to the timely care of emergency patients. Insufficient emphasis on prehospital emergency systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) currently causes a substantial number of avoidable deaths from time-sensitive illnesses, highlighting a critical need for improved prehospital emergency care systems. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to assess the prehospital emergency care services across LMICs.

This systematic review used four electronic databases, namely: PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and SCOPUS, to search for published reports on prehospital emergency medical care in LMICs. Only peer-reviewed studies published in English language from January 1, 2010 through November 1, 2022 were included in the review. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Further, the protocol of this systematic review has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (Ref: CRD42022371936) and has been conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Of the 4,909 identified studies, a total of 87 studies met the inclusion criteria and were therefore included in the review. Prehospital emergency care structure, transport care, prehospital times, health outcomes, quality of information exchange, and patient satisfaction were the most reported outcomes in the considered studies.

The prehospital care system in LMICs is fragmented and uncoordinated, lacking trained medical personnel and first responders, inadequate basic materials, and substandard infrastructure.

1) There is no increase in transport or scene time of diverted patients and no increase in distances traveled; 2) hospital resource shortages bear no relationship to the number of patients diverted; and 3) paramedics are able to match their patient correctly with the resources available at a given hospital.

This was a five-month, prospective, observational study in an urban area with a population of 600,000 comparing all 9-1-1 ambulance diversions against a randomly selected sample of 5% of all other 9-1-1 originated patients. All patient diversions that originated from the 9-1-1 center are included in the study.

Hospitals identify their diversion status on a community-wide computer system monitored at the 9-1-1 center and base station. Accepted categories include: 1) diversion of all patients through the 9-1-1 center from the emergency department (ED); 2) trauma system patients (T); 3) psychiatric secure beds (PSB); 4) general acute ward beds (AW); 5) critical care (CC); 6) computed tomography scan (CT); 7) labor and delivery (LD); and 8) pediatric beds (PEDS). Data were abstracted from 481 patients' records. A total of 111 were diverted from their intended destination. Transport times were longer and diverted patients traveled further (p <.002). Hospitals showing ED and LD diversion categories were more likely to have patients diverted away (r2 = .895, multilinear regression, p <.001). Of the 111 patients, 21 (19%) were diverted because of CC unavailability. Six of these (28%) were inappropriate because they did not fit the CC definition.

In this system, hospital diversions increase transport times and distances traveled. Diversion of patients correlated strongly to unavailability of specific categories. Paramedics make errors in determining appropriate CC diversions. Systems reviewing their diversion problems need to assess the impact of longer out-of-hospital times and of certain diversion categories, and to clarify definitions.

Decisions to send an ambulance with or without lights and siren are made every day. While travel with lights and siren is presumed to have relatively more risk associated with it than travel without, little epidemiologic analysis has been conducted to compare the two modes of travel or to characterize collisions in general.

To characterize ambulance collisions and assess the risk of traveling with lights and siren in an urban 9-1-1 environment.

Retrospective analysis of all consecutive ambulance collisions of the Paramedic Division of the San Francisco Department of Public Health during a 27-month period.

The overall collision rate for lights and siren (LS) travel was higher than that for non-lights and siren travel, although the difference was not statistically significant (45.9 collisions per 100,000 LS patient travels, 95% confidence limits 29.7, 62.1, versus 27.0/100,000 for non-LS travel, 95% confidence limits 18.3, 35.7). However, the rates of resulting injuries displayed a statistically significant difference (22.2 injuries per 100,00 LS patient travel, 95% confidence limits 11.0, 33.5, versus 1.5/100,000 for non-LS travel, 95% confidence limits −0.6, 3.5). While the majority of collisions (60.0%) occurred during patient-related travel, 35.6% occurred while the ambulance was available awaiting assignment, and 4.4% in a hospital parking lot. The majority of collisions were due to inattention, failure of on-coming traffic to yield, or unsafe parking; unsafe speed was an infrequent cause. Most crashes occurred during daylight, in dry weather, and involved another vehicle.

There is some elevated risk for collision and added injury during lights and siren travel compared to travel without LS. The causes for these collisions suggest that interventions designed to improve driver skills and increase citizen awareness of an approaching ambulance could help reduce the number of collisions.

Limited information exists concerning physician staffing at mass gathering events.

A retrospective review of the preparation, planning, and provision of medical care for the United States Air Show was performed. Patient encounters from the air show for the years 1981–1991 also were evaluated.

The frequency rate of overall encounters was 8.45 patients/10,000 spectators and hospital transport rate was 0.6/10,000 spectators. The majority of complaints were related to heat or minor injuries. During this period, emergency physicians played a vital role in both medical planning and on-site staffing. Emergency medicine residents also participated. A small patient population received direct benefit from on-site physician intervention.

The on-site emergency physician is of benefit in event preplanning and reducing the burden on the EMS system during mass gathering events.