ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2025
Comparative analysis of emergency medical systems in the UK and Japan: recommendations for Japan based on on-site observations in the UK.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A systems approach to understanding injury care in LMICs using causal loop diagrams.BMJ global health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEmergency Medical Systems (EMS) are central to modern healthcare, providing timely, specialized care. Although the United Kingdom (UK) and Japan have universal healthcare, their EMS models differ significantly. The UK emphasizes centralized trauma networks, advanced prehospital capabilities, standardized simulation training, robust research integration, and a high degree of specialization and division of labor. Japan’s EMS prioritizes accessibility through a tiered system and regional autonomy. Both systems face workforce sustainability issues and documentation inefficiencies. This study provides recommendations for enhancing Japan’s EMS by examining the UK system through on-site observations.
methodsA qualitative observational study was conducted during a four-day site visit in May 2024 to key EMS institutions in London, including the Royal London Hospital Major Trauma Center, the London Air Ambulance, and allied educational and research facilities. Five Japanese emergency physicians with expertise in trauma care, ICU management, simulation-based training, and prehospital emergency services participated. Data collection included direct clinical observations, structured discussions with UK clinicians and administrators, and a review of institutional guidelines. Thematic analysis identified strengths, weaknesses, and potential applicability to Japan.
resultsIn the UK, EMS leverages division of labor, specialization, centralization, and standardization to ensure efficient, high-quality care. Trauma networks, robust simulation-based education, integrated ICU management, and advanced HEMS systems are supported by unified research frameworks. However, workforce inefficiencies in staff allocation persist. Applying UK insights to Japan includes establishing dedicated trauma centers, standardizing care protocols, integrating systems, and enhancing research culture. Some strategies, such as integrated prehospital services, face feasibility challenges in Japan due to staffing issues.
conclusionOn-site observations of the UK’s EMS highlight organizational efficiency and the benefits of integrated, specialized care. Incorporating UK-inspired frameworks could strengthen Japan’s EMS, especially by unifying systems and centralizing trauma care. Ongoing international collaboration and further comparative research are crucial for advancing global EMS practices.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.