Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Care Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP, INC. MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Care Study For Travis County, Texas November 4, 2011 PRE -HOSPITAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE STUDY for Travis County, Texas NOVEMBER 4, 2011 MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP , INC . Virginia/DC Area Headquarters 4000 Genesee Place, Suite 205 Lake Ridge, Virginia 22192 Phone: 703.590.7250 Fax: 703.590.0366 Management Advisory Group, Inc. Emergency Medical Care Study MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP, INC. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTING SERVICES November 4, 2011 Mr. Danny Hobby County Executive, Emergency Services Travis County Dear Mr. Hobby, Please find enclosed a report for the study of pre-hospital emergency medical care (RFS # S110093-EC). We are pleased to have had the opportunity to assist you and the County in this important project. We would like to thank all of the participants in this study. They include County management and staff, ATCEMS management and staff, municipal managers, ESD’s at all levels, and informed and interested citizens who have shared their ideas. MAG’s study team is offering 37 specific recommendations in response to the goals of the original Request for Services. Please feel free to call or email at any time as we move forward in the review of the report. Sincerely, Donald C. Long, Ph.D. Executive Vice President Management Advisory Group, Inc. 4000 Genesee Place, Suite 205 Lake Ridge, VA 22192 (703) 590-7250 or (828) 808-3551 cell [email protected] TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS STUDY OF PRE-HOSPITAL EMERGENCY CARE FOR TRAVIS COUNTY TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Table of Contents Section 1.0 – Scope of Work ........................................................................... Page 1-1 Section 2.0 - Approach and Methodology ...................................................... Page 2-1 2.1 Methodology 2.2 Work Plan Section 3.0 – Current Environment ................................................................. Page 3-1 3.1 Austin/Travis County Emergency Medical Services 3.2 System Revenues and Costs 3.3 Organization of EMS Services in Travis County Section 4.0 – Best Practices Review ............................................................... Page 4-1 4.1 National Study of EMS System Development 4.2 Air Medical Services 4.3 Best Practices Study Completed for Washington, D.C. 4.4 Beaufort County, South Carolina EMS Study 4.5 Phoenix Fire Department 4.6 MAG Best Practices Survey Management Advisory Group, Inc. TOC-1 Section 5.0 – Findings and Recommendations .............................................. Page 5-1 5.1 Organizational Options and Alternatives for EMS Services 5.2 Operational Enhancements 5.3 Performance Measurement 5.4 Aero Ambulance Services 5.5 Pilot Project: Fire Based EMS Ambulance Service 5.6 Contracts and Agreements 5.7 Review of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Section 6.0 – Implementation Plan .................................................................. Page 6-1 37 Recommendations in table format Section 7.0 – Appendices ................................................................................ Page 7-1 A: Recommended Interlocal Agreement B: Recommended Interlocal Agreement – Financial Formula C: Best Practices Survey Results and Survey Document Management Advisory Group, Inc. TOC-2 Travis County, Texas Emergency Medical Care Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Scope of Work Travis County requested Management Advisory Group, Inc. to review the existing and proposed performance and cost of pre-hospital EMS services provided to Travis County by the City of Austin and make recommendations for EMS performance metrics, aero and ground ambulance operations and transport, and cost of services, including current financial formulas for determining County costs. The County has also sought recommendations on performance measurement, dispatch, training, and the current Interlocal Agreement for the provision of pre-hospital EMS services. The full scope of work is detailed in Section 1.0. Approach and Methodology The methodology included substantial data and document review, extensive discussions with County and ATCEMS management and staff, and meetings with Emergency Service Districts, municipalities, and emergency services groups. The analysis included consideration of best practices in the field and a survey of selected agencies to determine how certain practices may be applied to Travis County. Section 2.0 more fully describes the approach and methodology used in the study. Current EMS Environment Of the $43 million ATCEMS budget, the current Interlocal Agreement compels the City of Austin to provide EMS services for about $11.8 million in consideration from Travis County. This annual contractual amount has increased 47% since 2005. The County is not able to control City costs, most of which are personnel costs (86% of budget). The average actual salary for Paramedics within ACTEMS is slightly over $53,000 per year. Further, the Interlocal Agreement has no performance criteria, accountability, or penalties for non-performance. A revised Agreement is provided in Appendix A. Management Advisory Group, Inc. ES-1 Travis County, Texas Emergency Medical Care Study The net per capita cost for EMS services, after “backing out” EMS transport revenues captured by both jurisdictions, appears to be higher in the County (by 81%) than in the City, as described on pages 3-7 and 3-8. In terms of EMS services provided, upon arrival at a scene, ATCEMS has demonstrated a high quality of pre-hospital medical care through its appropriately trained personnel. Of concern is the matter of timeliness of response, as data has indicated that response times in the County are much greater than in the City (over a seven minute differential in 2010). City data indicates that ATCEMS is only meeting a 60% response level for the time goals established for the County areas. This is true even though response time goals are less demanding in the Suburban areas of the County than in the Urban defined area. For the proposed Interlocal Agreement exhibit for finances (Appendix B), it is recommended that population in the County and the City be used to establish the share of EMS system costs. This is a defensible approach that would reduce the County’s current annual obligation by $1.5 million. By using population as an “EMS Services Multiplier” (rather than the current “Personnel Multiplier”, the County’s share of costs is reduced from approximately 26% to approximately 22%. The recommended Agreement also fully addresses performance criteria and accountability factors. The current service model has been in place for 34 years, and any suggestions to modify the basic relationship will be harshly criticized by those with a vested interest in the status quo. However, the current EMS service delivery model suffers from Management Advisory Group, Inc. ES-2 Travis County, Texas Emergency Medical Care Study substantially increasing expense, response times that are much greater in the County than in the City, lack of cost controls and performance criteria, lack of accountability for lack of performance, and a provider/client relationship that is not balanced. Many County staff and officials believe they have been treated as “second class citizens” by the City in the contractual relationship. A variety of factors (increasing contract costs, not meeting response time standards) have led to this point in time as a time for change. Best Practices Review Section 4.0 includes a wealth of information on various EMS systems, including analysis from the Committee on the Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System (formed by the Institute of Medicine, or IOM). One of the findings of best practices reviews in the EMS field is reflected by the conclusion of one of the surveys, that, “When you have seen one EMS system, you have seen one EMS system”. That unique perspective points to the diversity of models, approaches, and service orientations that exist across the country. There is no federal agency dictating specific models or approaches to governance, source of funding, organizational relationships, staffing, communications, or any of the many aspects of pre-hospital care. MAG surveyed six systems that involve a major metropolitan area and/or possible involvement of local surrounding jurisdictions or the county: four in Texas and two in other states. All systems monitor performance and use specified response times as part of their measurements. Of the four county-wide systems described above, three use contract agreements with local jurisdictions, such as fire departments or EMS districts, to provide first response and/or ambulance transport. Of these four systems, none contract with private providers for response or transport. Management Advisory Group, Inc. ES-3 Travis County, Texas Emergency Medical Care Study Recommended Model of Organization MAG identified four (4) major organizational options for providing EMS services within the County portion of Travis County. They include: 1. Status Quo – Utilizing ATCEMS for EMS ground ambulance transports; and/or 2. Establishing a Unified County Fire Rescue Services Organization; or 3. Establishing a County Operated EMS Department; or, 4. Obtaining a New Contracted EMS Provider. A universal aspect of the four (4) service options and operational enhancements is that all Options, Operational Enhancements, and the “Pilot Project” (to provide Fire Based EMS Ambulance Services) would: require establishing Response Time Standards; require establishing Response Coverage Areas; attempt to