Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: Emergency medical services (EMS) demand is increasing, with a growing proportion of low-acuity encounters. Prior studies are limited by regional sampling, inconsistent definitions, narrow observation periods, and limited theoretical grounding. The objective of this study was to identify predisposing, enabling, and need-based factors associated with EMS transport among low-acuity emergency department (ED) patients, guided by Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use. METHODS: We conducted a secondary, retrospective observational study using a 10% random sample of multicenter electronic health record data from 21 EDs in the southeastern United States. Eligible visits included: 1) patient age >17 years, 2) occurred between January 1, 2016, and April 29, 2025, 3) triaged as Emergency Severity Index 4 or 5, and 4) ended in a final visit disposition of discharge. The primary outcome was arrival at the ED by EMS. We categorized independent variables as predisposing, enabling, or need-based factors according to Andersen's model. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Among 41,761 low-acuity ED encounters, 3,232 (7.7%) arrived by EMS. Higher odds of EMS use were observed for older age (per 10-year increase; aOR 1.33, 95% CI = 1.30-1.36), male sex (aOR 1.20, 95% CI = 1.12-1.30), being retired or disabled (aOR 3.60, 95% CI = 3.15-4.10), being unemployed (aOR 2.26, 95% CI = 2.04-2.52), having a nighttime presentation (aOR 1.63, 95% CI = 1.51-1.76), and mental health diagnosis (aOR 1.76, 95% CI = 1.62-1.90). Lower odds of EMS arrival were observed for white race (aOR 0.89, 95% CI = 0.83-0.96), established primary care (aOR 0.57, 95% CI = 0.53-0.62), weekend presentation (aOR 0.91; 95% CI = 0.84-0.99), and visits during (aOR 0.63, 95% CI = 0.55-0.71) or after (aOR 0.54, 95% CI = 0.48-0.61) the COVID-19 period. Rurality, insurance, and primary language were not associated with EMS use. CONCLUSIONS: Among low-acuity ED patients, EMS arrival was associated with older age, unemployment or disability, no established primary care clinician, and a previous mental health diagnosis. These characteristics identify a population that may be served by alternatives to ambulance transport, such as treat-in-place and alternative destination pathways, when paired with expanded access to primary care and behavioral health resources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Muthersbaugh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: