1 Marija Ruklić
2,3Adriano Friganović
1 Department of emergency Medicine of Zagreb County, Zagreb, Croatia
2 Department of Anesthesiology and intensive Medicine, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
3 University of Applied Health Sciences, Zagreb, Croatia
Adriano Friganović
department of Anesthesiology and intensive Medicine, University Hospital centre Zagreb, Kišpatićeva 12, Zagreb, croatia
University of Applied Health Sciences, Zagreb, croatia e-mail: adriano@hdmsarist.hr
Methods. The data for this paper was collected and analysed in detail using the program “e-hitna” (“e-emergency”). The sample consists of all calls received in the period between 1 January and 31 december 2019 in the Medical reporting Unit of the department of emergency Medicine of Zagreb county (deMZc; Zavod za hitnu medicinu zagrebačke županije). This paper presents the number, catego- ry, place of intervention, time of mobilisation of the emergency medical service team, and the response time of the emergency services team to emergency calls designated as priority 1 (A).
Results. A total of 47,060 calls were recorded in the “e-hitna” system. We found that out of the total num- ber of calls received, 49% (23,235) were related to emergency interventions. in 38% (8,841) of calls, the medical dispatcher opted for priority 1 (A). According to the place of emergency, 53% (4,691) of priority 1 (A) cases take place in the apartment, while 46% (4,071) occur in a public place. The average mobilisa- tion time of an eMS team for priority 1 (A) cases for apartments is 1.87 ± 1.27, while for public places it is 1.92 ± 0.78 min. (Mann Whitney U test, p<0.001). The average response time of an eMS team for prior- ity 1 (A) cases for apartments is 11.02 ± 4.27, and for public places it is 6.57 ± 3.78 min. The response
time was on average much shorter for calls related to emergencies in public places (Mann Whitney U test, p<0,001).