ArticlePrehospital and disaster medicine2024
"Smart Emergency Call Point" Enhancing Emergency Medical Services on University Campuses.
Article in Prehospital and disaster medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The diagnostic performance of automatic B-lines detection for evaluating pulmonary edema in the emergency department among novice point-of-care ultrasound practitioners.Emergency radiology · 2025Article
- Transition of EMS workflow from radio to bell signals to shorten activation time in multiple casualty incident.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhanced Diagnostic Precision in Revisited Emergency Patients via Point-of-Care Ultrasound: A Tool for Emergency Department Quality Management.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Automatic B-lines: a tool for minimizing time to diuretic administration in pulmonary edema patients in the emergency department of a developing country.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
- The Impact of Global Warming on the Rise in Heat-Related Illnesses in Emergency Medical Services.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe "Smart Emergency Call Point" is a device designed for requesting assistance and facilitating rapid responses to emergencies. The functionality of smart emergency call points has evolved to include features as real-time photo transmission and communication capabilities for both staff and emergency personnel. These devices are being used to request Emergency Medical Services (EMS) on university campuses. Despite these developments, there has been a lack of previous studies demonstrating significant advantages of integrating smart emergency call points into EMS systems. STUDY
objectiveThe primary goal of this study was to compare the response times of EMS between traditional phone calls and the utilization of smart emergency call points located on university campuses. Additionally, the study aimed to provide insights into the characteristics of smart emergency call points as a secondary objective.
methodsThis retrospective database analysis made use of information acquired from Thailand's EMS at Srinagarind Hospital. The data were gathered over a period of four years, specifically from January 2019 through January 2022. The study included two groups: the first group used the phone number 1669 to request EMS assistance, while the second group utilized the smart emergency call point. The primary focus was on the response times. Additionally, the study documented the characteristics of the smart emergency call points that were used in the study.
resultsAmong the 184 EMS operations included in this study, 60.9% (N = 56) involved females in the smart emergency call point group. Notably, the smart emergency call point group showed a higher frequency of operations between the hours of 6:00am and 6:00pm when compared to the 1669 call group (P = .020). In dispatch triage, the majority of emergency call points were categorized as non-urgent, in contrast to the phone group for 1669 which were primarily cases categorized as urgent (P = .010). The average response time for the smart emergency call point group was significantly shorter, at 6.01 minutes, compared to the phone number 1669 group, which had an average response time of 9.14 minutes (P <.001).
conclusionIn the context of calling for EMS on a university campus, the smart emergency call points demonstrate a significantly faster response time than phone number 1669 in Thailand. Furthermore, the system also offers the capability to request emergency assistance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.