Characteristic patterns of emergency ambulance assignments for older adults compared with adults requiring emergency care at home in Sweden: a total population study

BACKGROUND: Since the vast majority of older adults in Sweden live in their private homes throughout life, the emergency medical services need to adapt accordingly. Hence, we aimed to describe characteristic patterns of dyadic staffed emergency ambulance assignments for older adults aged > 70 years compared with adults aged 18–69 years requiring emergency care at home in Sweden. METHODS: A descriptive retrospective study was performed using anonymized registry data from the emergency medical services in a region of Sweden during 2017–2018. One-sample χ(2) test, one-way analysis of variance, and binary logistic regression models were used for investigating group differences. Variables for analysis were age, gender, clinical assessments, on-scene time, priority levels, result of response, and temporal patterns. RESULTS: Of all included emergency ambulance assignments (n = 28,533), 59.9% involved older adults, of which 53.8% were women. The probability for older adults to receive the highest priority was decreased for both dispatch (p < 0.001, odds ratio [OR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59–0.66), and transport priorities (p < 0.001, OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.68–0.80). Older adults were more likely to receive dispatch priority levels 2 (p < 0.001, OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.40–1.56), and 3 (p < 0.001, OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.46–2.06). The older adults were similarly more likely to receive transport priority level 3 (p < 0.001, OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.28–1.52) compared with adults. Age had a small but additive effect in relation to on-scene time (p < 0.001, R(2) = 0.01, F = 53.82). Distinguishing initial clinical assessments for older adults were circulatory, respiratory, trauma, infection, and nonspecific assessments. Emergency ambulance assignments for older adults were more frequently occurring on Mondays (p < 0.001, χ(2) = 232.56), and in the 08:00–11:59 interval (p < 0.001, χ(2) = 1224.08). CONCLUSION: The issues of the lower priority level preponderance, and the decreased probability for receiving the highest priority warrant further attention in future research and clinical practice.