Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Pre‐hospital emergency care is a critical component of emergency medical services (EMS), yet large‐scale epidemiological evidence from the main urban area of Chongqing remains limited. This study aimed to characterize the epidemiological profile and pre‐hospital outcomes of emergency patients in Chongqing from 2024 to 2025 and to provide evidence for optimizing EMS resource allocation. Methods This retrospective study included 247,725 pre‐hospital emergency patients from eight administrative districts in the main urban area of Chongqing. Demographic characteristics, emergency etiologies, spatiotemporal distributions, response time, and treatment outcomes were extracted from the Chongqing 120 command and dispatch system. Descriptive statistics and chi‐square tests were used for analysis. Results Patients were predominantly male (54.52%) and middle‐aged or elderly with a mean age of 55.2 years. Trauma (33.00%), neurological diseases (24.22%), and respiratory diseases (10.79%) were the three leading emergency causes. The disease spectrum differed significantly by gender and age group (both p < 0.001). Emergency calls showed two daily peaks at 08:00–08:59 and 21:00–21:59 with a monthly peak in December. Yubei District accounted for the largest proportion of cases. The median pre‐hospital emergency response time was 644 s (IQR 503–827 s), and the mean was 705.5 s, and the overall pre‐hospital mortality rate was 6.02%(95% CI: 5.92%–6.12%). Neurological diseases accounted for the highest number of deaths, whereas accidents had the highest case fatality rate. Conclusions Pre‐hospital emergencies in Chongqing show distinct demographic, etiological, temporal, and geographical patterns. Dynamic and targeted allocation of emergency resources, enhanced capacity for high‐risk diseases and peak periods, and improved pre‐hospital in‐hospital coordination are urgently needed to reduce pre‐hospital mortality and improve EMS efficiency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ran et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: