| |
| Strategies Objectives | # | Strategies | States Scores |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona1 | California 2 | Connecticut 2 | Florida 2 | Georgia 2 | Indiana 2 | Iowa 2 | Kansas 2 | Kentucky 2 | Maryland 1 | Massachusetts 2 | Minnesota 2 | Mississippi 2 | Montana 1 | New York 2 | North Carolina 2 | North Dakota 1 | Oklahoma 2 | Pennsylvania 1 | South Carolina 2 | South Dakota 1 | Tennessee 1 | Utah 2 | Virginia 2 | Unknown 2 | Sum | Number of Votes | Score per Vote | |||
Integrate service to enhance emergency medical capabilities |
20.1 A1 |
Establish programs with organizations to utilize nontraditional employees as EMS responders (T) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 A2 |
Facilitate development of regional resources and/or cooperatives (T) | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 20 | 5 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 A3 |
Integrate support of EMS into rural hospital financing programs (T) | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 A4 |
Integrate information systems and highway safety activities (T) | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 A5 |
Integrate EMS systems into the Safe Communities effort (T) | 2 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 A6 |
Use mobile data technologies that are interoperable with hospital systems (T) | 4 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 A7 |
Require all communication systems to be interoperable with surrounding and state jurisdictions (T) | 4 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 33 | 9 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||
Provide or improve management and decision–making tools |
20.1 B1 |
Develop resource and performance standards unique to the specific rural EMS (T) | 5 | 5 | 1 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 B2 |
Identify, provide, and mandate efficient and effective methods for collection of necessary EMS data (T) | 4 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 B3 |
Identify and evaluate model rural EMS operations (T) | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 15 | 4 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 B4 |
Provide evaluation results to elated and administrative officials at the county and local levels (T) | 1 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 C2 |
Establish an exchange program to allow rural EMS providers to spend a specified number of hours in urban/suburban systems (E) | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 C3 |
Include principles of traffic safety and injury prevention as part of EMS continuing education (E) | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 5 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 C4 |
Require first care training for all public safety emergency response personnel, including law enforcement officers (T) | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 14 | 5 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 C5 |
Educate rural residents about the availability, capability, and limitations of existing systems (T) | 1 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Provide better education opportunities for rural EMS |
20.1 C6 |
Utilize technology–base instruction for rural EMS training (T) | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 C7 |
Establish an exchange program to allow rural EMS providers to spend a specified number of hours in urban/suburban systems (T) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reduce time from injury to appropriate definitive care |
20.1 D1 |
Improve cellular telephone coverage in rural areas (T) | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 22 | 6 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
20.1 D2 |
Improve compliance of rural 9–1–1 centers with FCC wireless "Phase II" automatic location capability (T) | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 17 | 5 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 D3 |
Utilize GPS technology to improve response time (T) | 5 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 15 | 5 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 D4 |
Integrate automatic vehicle location (AVL) and computer–aided navigation (CAN) technologies into all computer–aided dispatch (CAD) systems (T) | 5 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 20 | 6 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||
20.1 D5 |
Equip EMS vehicles with multi–service and/or satellite– capable telephones (T) | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 4 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments |
Evaluating Non–infrastructure countermeasures may not be the most efficient use of the resources on this project. My understanding is we are focusing on data and crash analysis to determine infrastructure improvements focusing on the engineering side. The TAC consists of Engineers and as i agree Education, EMS and Enforcement is key, we should keep this project focused on engineering solutions | I am not really qualified to prioritize within this field | 5–1–1 Capability to Improve Transfer to correct facility (Score 2) | Unsure how to mark Volume 15 Data | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| » | Office of Safety R&D |
| » | Safety R&D Program |
| » | Safety R&D Experts |
| » | Safety R&D Laboratories |
| » | Safety R&D Projects |
| » | Safety R&D Publications |
| » | Safety R&D Topics |
| » | FHWA's Office of Safety |
| » | Resource Center Safety and Design Team |