Beyond Response Times, Part 1: Why EMS Performance Must Measure More Than Speed
For decades, one of the most visible measures of emergency medical services performance has been response time.
How quickly did the ambulance arrive?
The appeal is obvious. Response time is easy to understand, straightforward to report, and simple to incorporate into contracts, dashboards, public reports, and performance standards. A call is received, a unit responds, an ambulance arrives, and the interval can be measured.
But there is a fundamental limitation.
Response time tells us when the ambulance arrived.
It does not tell us what happened when the clinicians reached the patient.
That distinction matters because modern EMS is no longer simply an ambulance transportation function. EMS clinicians assess complex patients, manage critical airways, interpret electrocardiograms, administer medications, treat shock, identify stroke and STEMI, manage cardiac arrest, perform trauma triage, make destination decisions, and increasingly connect patients with a broader healthcare system.
If EMS has evolved into a healthcare delivery system, the way we evaluate EMS should evolve with it.
Why Response Time Still Matters
There is no serious argument for eliminating response time from EMS performance measurement.
Some emergencies are extraordinarily time sensitive. Cardiac arrest, severe hemorrhage, respiratory failure, stroke, and other critical conditions can deteriorate rapidly. Communities should expect emergency resources to be appropriately deployed and available when needed.
The problem occurs when response time becomes a proxy for the quality of the entire EMS encounter.
Consider out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that more than 356,000 people experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States each year, and approximately 60% to 80% die before reaching the hospital.
The American Heart Association reports that immediate CPR can double or triple a person's chance of survival. Yet the AHA reports that only 40.2% of patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the statistics it cites received bystander CPR.
Those numbers illustrate something important.
The outcome of an emergency can be influenced by many things that a simple ambulance-arrival interval cannot measure.
Did someone recognize the emergency?
Did a bystander begin CPR?
Did dispatch provide appropriate instructions?
Did responding clinicians minimize interruptions in chest compressions?
Was defibrillation delivered appropriately?
Was ventilation managed effectively?
Was an advanced airway placed safely and confirmed correctly?
Was post-resuscitation care appropriate?
Was the patient transported to the right facility?
Two ambulances can arrive in exactly the same amount of time and deliver very different care.
If the principal performance metric records both encounters simply as “response-time compliant,” an important part of the story disappears.
What Happens After Arrival Matters
Imagine two hypothetical EMS responses.
Both ambulances arrive in seven minutes.
In the first case, clinicians rapidly recognize a time-critical condition, perform the appropriate assessment, initiate evidence-based treatment, communicate with the receiving hospital, select the appropriate destination, document the encounter accurately, and identify no significant patient-safety concerns.
In the second case, the ambulance also arrives in seven minutes, but there are delays in recognition, incomplete assessment, inappropriate treatment, poor documentation, or a destination decision inconsistent with the patient's clinical needs.
Operationally, the response times are identical.
Clinically, the encounters are not.
That is why speed alone cannot provide a complete picture of EMS quality.
A modern performance system should be capable of distinguishing between the two.
The EMS Profession Is Already Moving Beyond the Clock
This is not simply a theoretical argument.
In 2024, a broad coalition of national EMS organizations issued a joint position statement specifically addressing EMS performance measures beyond response times. The statement reflects increasing recognition within the profession that response time should not stand alone as the principal measure of EMS system performance.
The National EMS Quality Alliance has also created standardized clinical quality measures intended to help EMS organizations evaluate and improve care.
NEMSQA approved an initial set of 11 national EMS quality measures in 2019. In 2023, the organization added 10 additional measures through its national endorsement process.
Those newer measures address clinically meaningful areas including airway management and trauma care. Examples include first-attempt advanced-airway success without peri-intubation hypotension or hypoxia, adequate oxygenation before intubation, waveform capnography confirmation of invasive airways, trauma pain assessment, appropriate trauma-center transport, and documentation of critical trauma variables.
This matters because it demonstrates that EMS quality does not have to remain an abstract concept.
It can be measured.
And when it can be measured, it can be improved.
EMS Agenda 2050 Reinforces the Same Direction
EMS Agenda 2050 describes a future EMS system centered on the needs of people rather than simply the movement of vehicles.
The national vision calls for EMS systems that are:
Inherently safe and effective.
Integrated and seamless.
Reliable and prepared.
Socially equitable.
Sustainable and efficient.
Adaptable and innovative.
Those principles represent a much broader definition of EMS performance than response time alone.
A system cannot demonstrate that it is safe merely by documenting how quickly an ambulance arrived.
It cannot demonstrate effectiveness without examining clinical care.
It cannot demonstrate integration without evaluating communication, destination decisions, and interaction with other parts of healthcare.
It cannot demonstrate sustainability by measuring only speed while ignoring workforce, resource utilization, safety, and system design.
The clock remains important.
It simply becomes one component of a larger system of accountability.
From Operational Compliance to Healthcare Value
A more mature EMS performance framework should evaluate areas that the EMS organization can meaningfully influence.
That distinction is important.
Not every patient outcome is controlled by EMS. Hospital treatment, underlying disease, patient age, comorbidities, socioeconomic factors, delays before 911 activation, and numerous other variables can influence ultimate outcomes.
Performance measures therefore need to be carefully selected.
They should evaluate important aspects of care without holding EMS organizations responsible for variables substantially outside their control.
Several domains deserve particular attention.
Clinical Care
Clinical quality measures can evaluate whether patients receive appropriate evidence-based assessment and treatment.
Examples may include airway management, stroke assessment, STEMI recognition and notification, pain management, trauma triage, resuscitation practices, oxygenation, ventilation, and physiologic monitoring.
NEMSQA's current measure set demonstrates that many of these concepts can already be defined using standardized criteria.
Patient Safety
An EMS system should also be evaluated on its ability to identify and reduce preventable harm.
Potential areas include medication errors, adverse events, high-risk procedures, ambulance crashes, inappropriate use of emergency warning devices, equipment failures, and other patient- or provider-safety concerns.
Quality improvement should not simply identify that something went wrong.
It should help determine why it happened and what can be changed to reduce the likelihood of recurrence.
Documentation Quality
Documentation is sometimes treated as an administrative burden separate from patient care.
It is not.
The electronic patient care report supports continuity of care, clinical review, quality improvement, reimbursement, research, regulatory compliance, medical oversight, and legal accountability.
Incomplete documentation can also undermine the reliability of every performance measure built from that data.
If an organization wants credible analytics, it first needs credible documentation.
Destination Decision-Making
The destination selected by EMS can have significant implications for patients.
A major trauma patient may require a trauma center.
A patient with suspected large-vessel-occlusion stroke may require access to specialized stroke capability.
A STEMI patient may require a facility capable of timely percutaneous coronary intervention.
An effective EMS system therefore should not be evaluated solely on how quickly the ambulance reached the patient.
It should also consider whether the patient was subsequently directed toward an appropriate level of care.
System Value
Value is broader than cost.
In EMS, value can be considered through the relationship between resources and the quality of service delivered to patients and communities.
A high-value system should strive to be timely, safe, clinically effective, appropriately documented, patient-centered, operationally reliable, and responsible with limited healthcare resources.
That does not mean every EMS organization should be measured using dozens of indicators.
In fact, the opposite may be true.
A useful performance framework should prioritize a manageable number of measures that actually influence decisions.
Measure What the Organization Can Change
One of the most important principles in performance measurement is actionability.
A measure is much more valuable when poor performance identifies something the organization can address.
Consider first-pass airway success.
If performance declines, leadership can investigate several potential causes.
Is training adequate?
Are clinicians receiving sufficient opportunities to maintain competency?
Is the equipment appropriate?
Are difficult-airway protocols clear?
Is preoxygenation being performed correctly?
Are clinicians receiving feedback after airway attempts?
Does the organization have an effective airway-review process?
The metric becomes useful because it directs attention toward areas where improvement is possible.
The same logic applies throughout EMS.
If stroke-screen completion declines, review education and workflow.
If trauma-alert compliance declines, examine protocols and communication.
If refusal documentation is incomplete, examine training and the electronic documentation process.
If medication errors increase, review medication storage, labeling, calculation processes, education, and human-factors design.
The purpose of measurement is not simply to produce a percentage.
The purpose is to create information that can lead to action.
Quality Measurement Should Lead to Quality Improvement
There is an important difference between measuring performance and improving performance.
An organization can build dashboards containing hundreds of data points and still fail to improve patient care.
Measurement becomes valuable only when the information moves through a continuous improvement cycle.
Measure.
Identify variation.
Investigate causes.
Develop an intervention.
Educate clinicians.
Implement the change.
Measure again.
Provide feedback.
Adjust when necessary.
Repeat.
NEMSQA specifically encourages EMS organizations to establish baseline performance and then use quality measures to develop meaningful interventions intended to improve care.
That is the real purpose of clinical measurement.
Not punishment.
Not another spreadsheet.
Not another dashboard presented at a monthly meeting and forgotten.
Improvement.
The Danger of Measuring What Is Easy Instead of What Matters
Response time became a dominant EMS metric partly because it is administratively attractive.
It produces a clean number.
Clinical quality is more complicated.
Determining whether a stroke assessment was appropriate requires context.
Evaluating airway performance requires understanding attempts, oxygenation, confirmation, complications, and patient condition.
Reviewing trauma destination decisions requires understanding triage criteria and circumstances.
Evaluating documentation requires defining what information was clinically necessary.
Complexity, however, should not prevent measurement.
Healthcare routinely evaluates complicated clinical processes because those processes matter to patients.
EMS should increasingly do the same.
The objective should not be to replace one oversimplified metric with dozens of complicated ones.
The objective should be balance.
A small number of carefully selected operational and clinical indicators can provide leaders with considerably more information than response time alone.
Contracts Can Become Tools for Improvement
This issue becomes particularly important when performance measures are incorporated into EMS contracts.
Contracts do more than determine whether an ambulance provider receives a penalty or satisfies a compliance threshold.
They influence organizational behavior.
What a contract measures communicates what the community considers important.
If nearly all contractual attention is directed toward response time, organizations have a powerful incentive to optimize around response time.
If contracts also recognize patient safety, clinical quality, documentation, appropriate destination decisions, and quality improvement, the incentives begin to change.
That does not mean every clinical metric should carry financial penalties.
Some measures may function better as reporting requirements.
Others may trigger corrective-action plans.
Some may be used for medical-director oversight.
Others may become quality-improvement objectives or performance incentives.
The design matters.
Poorly designed metrics can create unintended consequences just as easily as they can create improvement.
That is why the next phase of this discussion must focus on selecting the right measures rather than simply adding more of them.
A Better Question
Instead of asking only:
“How quickly did the ambulance arrive?”
EMS leaders, communities, healthcare organizations, and contract administrators should increasingly ask:
Was the response timely?
Was the care appropriate?
Was the care safe?
Were critical conditions recognized?
Were high-risk procedures performed effectively?
Was the patient transported to an appropriate destination?
Was the encounter documented accurately?
Were adverse events identified?
Did the organization learn from variation?
Did performance improve?
Is the EMS system creating meaningful value for the community?
Those questions are more difficult.
They are also much closer to what patients actually need from an emergency medical services system.
The Conversation Continues
This is Part 1 of a three-part Astera Global Solutions series examining how EMS performance measurement can move beyond response-time compliance.
Part 2 will address the next and more difficult question:
Which clinical and administrative measures actually belong in an EMS performance framework or contract?
We will examine what makes a metric meaningful, why organizational controllability matters, how many measures are practical, and how EMS leaders can distinguish useful quality indicators from data that simply creates additional reporting.
Part 3 will focus on implementation.
How should communities and EMS organizations build a practical scorecard?
How should performance thresholds be established?
How can clinical metrics support corrective action and continuous improvement?
How can leaders avoid creating unintended incentives?
And how can operational performance and clinical quality exist within the same accountability system?
The objective of this series is not to eliminate the clock.
It is to make sure the clock is not the only thing we are watching.
Call to Action
If your EMS agency, municipality, fire department, healthcare organization, medical oversight program, or contract-management team is evaluating how clinical quality can be incorporated into performance measurement, contract governance, or continuous quality improvement, this is a conversation worth having.
Astera Global Solutions works at the intersection of clinical practice, quality improvement, operations, education, leadership, and organizational strategy.
The goal is not simply to create another dashboard.
It is to help organizations identify measures that are meaningful, measurable, actionable, and capable of driving better systems and better patient care.
To discuss EMS performance measurement, clinical quality improvement, contract evaluation, or EMS system development, contact Astera Global Solutions at info@asteraglobalsolutions.net or visit asteraglobalsolutions.net.
References
American Heart Association. CPR Facts & Stats. The American Heart Association reports that immediate CPR can double or triple survival following cardiac arrest and cites a 40.2% rate of bystander CPR among the out-of-hospital cardiac arrests reflected in its 2023 statistics.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). About Cardiac Arrest. The CDC reports more than 356,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests annually in the United States and estimates that approximately 60% to 80% of affected patients die before reaching the hospital.
EMS.gov. (2019). EMS Agenda 2050: A People-Centered Vision for the Future of Emergency Medical Services. EMS Agenda 2050 describes a people-centered EMS system guided by six principles and emphasizes greater integration with healthcare as well as evidence-based, data-driven practice.
Kupas, D. F., Zavadsky, M., Burton, B., et al. (2024). Joint Position Statement on EMS Performance Measures Beyond Response Times. Prehospital Emergency Care.
National EMS Quality Alliance. National EMS Quality Alliance Measure Set. NEMSQA approved 11 measures in its original 2019 national measure set and maintains clinical measures addressing areas including airway management, trauma, patient safety, and clinical effectiveness.
National EMS Quality Alliance. (2023). National EMS Quality Alliance Releases New Measures. NEMSQA announced 10 additional nationally endorsed quality measures in 2023.
National EMS Quality Alliance. Measure Development Process. NEMSQA describes a standardized lifecycle for researching, specifying, testing, endorsing, and maintaining EMS quality measures.
Comments