Chapter 4 Dan Manz The history of EMS in the United States is remarkably brief. Many regard the report Accidental Death and Disability: The Neglected Disease of Modern Society [1] in 1966 as the foundation from which organized EMS systems emerged throughout the country. Shortly thereafter, the US Department of Transportation released its first curriculum for training personnel as Emergency Medical Technician-Ambulance in 1969. The National Registry of EMTs (NREMT) was formed in 1970 to certify the entry-level competence of EMS personnel. The EMS Systems Act of 1973 provided critical support for states to begin organizing their EMS systems. More recently, the 1996 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-sponsored EMS Agenda for the Future (the Agenda) described a futuristic vision of EMS as “… community-based health management that is fully integrated with the overall health care system” [2]. In the context of systems that are not yet 50 years old, it should come as no surprise that the legislation, regulation, and ordinance governing these systems are still maturing. In 2010, the National Association of State EMS Officials (NASEMSO) published a Model Statutory and Regulatory Content for State EMS Systems [3]. This document was created in response to a report by the Institute of Medicine, titled Emergency Medical Services at the Crossroads [4]. Among other subjects, the report cites various problems with the state regulation of EMS systems. NASEMSO piece is intended to be a guide that states can use as a model for improving or reforming the content of their existing statutes. Emergency medical services systems provide emergency health care to patients in the out-of-hospital setting. Services are typically performed by non-physician personnel who are not independent practitioners. EMS personnel operate with defined scopes of practice using physician-approved protocols for care. Such personnel typically provide services on behalf of an EMS agency. The quality measures, relationships of system participants, education requirements, competency verifications, documentation expectations, and many other elements of the EMS system structure are usually defined in some form of legislation, regulation, or ordinance. Integral to the provision of quality out-of-hospital emergency medical care through EMS personnel has been physician medical oversight. This physician involvement is relatively simple to understand and more complex to put into action. Emergency physicians have the legitimate role and responsibility to determine and guide the management of patients requiring emergency care, whether in the hospital or outside the hospital. An April 2009 joint statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP), and NASEMSO on the subject of state EMS medical direction reads: Dedicated and qualified medical direction is required to ensure safe and quality patient care. Medical direction is a fundamental element of the emergency medical services (EMS) system. It is essential that the lead agency for EMS within the fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the territories of Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, has a state EMS medical director. The state EMS medical director provides specialized medical oversight in the development and administration of the EMS system and is an essential liaison with local EMS agencies, hospitals, state and national professional organizations, and state and federal partners. The state EMS medical director provides essential medical leadership, system oversight, coordination of guideline development for routine and disaster care, identification and implementation of best practices, system quality improvement, and research. The state EMS medical director is essential to the comprehensive EMS system at the local level by promoting integration of direct and indirect medical oversight for the entire emergency health care delivery system. The state EMS medical director should be a physician with extensive experience in EMS medical direction and an unrestricted medical license within the state. Ideally, the state EMS medical director will be a board-certified emergency medicine physician. State EMS medical direction requires political, administrative, and financial support to achieve these goals. The foundation of the relationship between the state EMS lead agency and the state EMS medical director, including the job description, responsibilities and authority, should be clearly defined within legislation, regulation, or a written contract. The state EMS medical director should be provided with mutually agreed upon compensation for services, necessary materials and resources, and liability protection specific to the unique duties and actions performed. In summary, ACEP, NAEMSP, and NASEMSO strongly encourage the establishment of a regular full-time position for a state EMS medical director in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the territories of Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. The same concepts of essential medical leadership, system oversight, coordination of guideline development for routine and disaster care, identification and implementation of best practices, system quality improvement, and research apply to physicians involved in EMS medical oversight at a regional or local level. Understanding the medical oversight model and the statutes, rules, or other authorities that enable it is important for every physician who provides out-of-hospital emergency care or is involved with the treatment of patients who may be served by the EMS system. It is equally important for physicians to become aware of the procedures and opportunities to influence these bodies of public policy. Chapter 8 of this volume addresses this subject more extensively. Emphasis in this chapter is put on statutes at the state level because these often drive the arrangements for managing EMS systems down to the local level. The foundation of EMS legislation, regulation, and ordinance is protection and specifically the protection of patients served by EMS. This is a legitimate and important consideration, particularly in light of the setting in which EMS occurs. When patients select primary care physicians, they have many options for learning about practitioners. Most states provide publicly accessible databases that include information about licensure status, academic background, practice specialty, hospital affiliations, and malpractice experience. The public can see this information, speak with trusted friends and neighbors about their experiences with a particular physician, talk to other health care providers, or pursue other means to learn about a physician in advance of establishing a doctor–patient relationship. When a person dials 9-1-1 with a medical emergency, the experience is very different. Patients have no choice about who arrives to provide their care. Patients in an emergency environment are poorly equipped to protect themselves against incompetent practice. Often, they open their homes to EMS personnel they have never previously met and about whom they know nothing. These EMS personnel are given access to the patient’s medications and sensitive information about their medical history, all at a time when the patient may be unable to observe the EMS personnel’s actions. The EMS experience often takes place with virtually no advance notice. Patients count on these people to safely and effectively provide life-saving interventions, many of which carry significant risk if not done properly. It is easy to see in this circumstance why there is a public interest in the cautious and conservative regulation of EMS. The role that physicians are assigned in statutes, rules, or other authorities to oversee and assure the quality of EMS in the out-of-hospital setting is an important public protection responsibility. Terminology surrounding the subjects of EMS legislation, regulation, and ordinance can sometimes be confusing. States may use slightly different titles for similar bodies of public policy. The Minnesota Legislature’s website provides a useful discussion of terminology regarding laws, statutes and rules that is broadly applicable to most states [5]. Central to the concept of statutes, rules, and ordinances is that no lower-level language may conflict with or supersede that of a higher level. Federal statutes trump state statutes. State rules may not usurp language established in state statutes, and ordinances typically may not conflict with state rules. Beyond statutes, rules, and ordinances are other legal or quasi-legal documents that affect the provision of EMS. Contracts may exist between private EMS providers and counties, cities, or towns for the provision of EMS. Contracts are agreements between parties for compensation in exchange for goods or services delivered and sometimes penalties for failure to perform. Policies exist within all forms of EMS agencies to describe expectations or requirements for all matters of daily operations. Emergency medical services legislation, regulation, and policy evolve constantly. Federal statutes are the most difficult to change. State statutes represent the next level of effort to modify. State rules or regulations are normally easier to amend than state statutes. Local, county, or municipal ordinances or policies may be less complicated to change than state rules or regulations. Contracts often have periodic opportunities to be amended or renewed. Local EMS agency policies and procedures are generally the easiest to modify. One strategy for establishing standards in statutes and rules is incorporation by reference. An example of this is the National EMS Scope of Practice Model (Scope Model) [6]. The Scope Model was established as a component of The EMS Education Agenda for the Future: A Systems Approach (Education Agenda) [7]. The Scope Model is a voluntary form intended for use by individual states to establish their specific scopes of practice for EMS personnel. It was developed through a consensus process that included broad input from all elements of the EMS community. The Scope Model represents a floor rather than a ceiling, with the intent that all states who use it assure that EMS personnel licensed in their state are authorized to perform at least the specified skills and interventions. While a state can elect to add more education and skills to a particular level, the Scope Model sets a common expectation that states can have when EMS personnel move between one state and another. Some states have begun to incorporate the Scope Model by reference in their laws or rules. The Scope Model is intended to evolve in the future as more evidence for safe and effective EMS practice is established. States that have incorporated it by reference do not need to reopen their legislative or rule-making processes to make updates. This is an important strategy that enables the debate and discussion of best practice and scientific evidence to occur among the relevant professional EMS organizations rather than within the halls of elected officials who often have little technical knowledge of medical practice. Incorporation by reference has gained popularity with the proliferation of technology that enables most source documents to be easily accessed through the internet. The incorporation of the Education Agenda is a good example of successful policy implementation using the concept of incorporation by reference as well as other concepts mentioned above. In 1998, at the request of NASEMSO, NHTSA supported the development of the Education Agenda. This document followed the original EMS Agenda for the Future with a specific focus on establishing a national system of EMS education that would parallel other allied health professions. The Education Agenda has five components: core content, scope of practice model, education standards, national certification, and national EMS program accreditation. Implementation of the Education Agenda has been a significant national undertaking that was completely voluntary by states. Many implementation efforts are still ongoing. As states have moved to implement the Education Agenda, most have had to amend components of their EMS statutes and/or rules. The majority of states now require NREMT certification to become state licensed, although this is not all states and not for all levels of licensure. Eligibility to hold NREMT certification as a paramedic now requires graduation from an accredited program of education. Accordingly, states that require NREMT certification for paramedics have also either directly or de facto established a requirement for national paramedic program accreditation by the Committee on Accreditation of Educational Programs for Emergency Medical Services Professions (CoAEMSP). As many states adjust their statutes and rules to reflect adoption of the Education Agenda, the language of each state’s statutes and rules is not standardized but the concepts behind these licensing and certification authorities are becoming more aligned. National implementation of the Education Agenda is also helping to standardize terminology about the authorization for EMS personnel to function. The Education Agenda calls the verification of entry level competence by NREMT a “certification.” The document issued by the state EMS authority enabling a person to function is called a “license.” Some have felt that the term license
Legislation, regulation, and ordinance
Introduction and brief history
Physician oversight of EMS systems
The role of legislation, regulation, and ordinance
The language and structure of legislation, regulation, and ordinance
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel