# Emergency Medical Services Policies and Perspectives Leading to Ambulance Engine Idling

## TL;DR

EMS clinicians often leave ambulance engines idling due to concerns about patient safety and equipment, despite potential environmental and health impacts.

## Contribution

This study identifies EMS policies and perspectives on ambulance engine idling through survey data and thematic analysis.

## Key findings

- Only 12% of respondents reported written policies on engine idling.
- Top concerns include patient and clinician comfort and medication compromise.
- Themes like patient safety fears and frustration emerged from responses.

## Abstract

Ambulances are often left to idle, which may contribute to maintenance costs, environmental harm, and resource inefficiencies. Engine idling affects the health of first responders due to the consequences of exhaust. Our study objective was to gain understanding of current emergency medical services (EMS) policies and perspectives on ambulance engine idling.

We designed an anonymous, 48-question survey that was distributed to all levels of EMS clinicians. There were 684 total survey responses from 11 states. We excluded those that only included demographics, yielding 507 responses. The response rate was 10.8%. The questions surveyed demographics, service characteristics, and current policies and perspectives on idling. We used multiple question types, including some that asked participants to rate their level of concern on a five-point Likert scale. “Strongly disagree” was coded as 1, and “strongly agree” was coded as 5. “Neither agree or disagree” was considered a neutral response and was coded as 3. Additionally, we conducted a thematic analysis on data derived from the free-text responses to identify themes.

Few (12%) respondents reported written policies on idling. The biggest concerns regarding idling involved the following (reported as median (IQR, 25th and 75th percentiles): patient comfort (4, IQR 4–5); EMS clinician comfort (4, IQR 4–5), and medication compromise (4, IQR 4–5). There was a neutral level of concern regarding equipment failure (3, IQR 3–4) and response delays (3, IQR 3–5). There was a less than neutral level of concern regarding engine failure (2, IQR 2–4); vehicle theft (2, IQR 2–4), air quality (2, IQR 2–3); increased fuel usage (2, IQR 2–3); and carbon emissions (2, IQR 2–3). Six themes emerged: fear of harming patient; safety; effects on air quality; habits and indifference; cost of idling; and frustration.

Emergency medical services clinicians mainly hesitate to turn off their engines out of concern for patient/personnel harm and potential equipment failure. The theme of frustration, noted in free-text responses, describes EMS clinicians’ feelings of suspicion and concern for an ulterior motive behind the study, which highlights the need for a collaborative effort at addressing this collective issue.